Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ARMED FORCES (CARIBBEAN AMPHIBIOUS EXERCISES)

Dr. Gilbert: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current movement of H.M. Ships and Service personnel in the Caribbean area.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): There are long-standing plans for various exercises in the Caribbean over the next few months. During February there is to be a major amphibious exercise in the Caribbean area, including the assault ship "Fearless" and substantial Army forces. A reinforcement exercise started this week in British Honduras, involving the Second Battalion Grenadier Guards and supporting forces. This has been planned since April, 1971. The "Ark Royal", currently off Key West, Florida, is visiting New York on 4th February and the opportunity is being taken to exercise her with Army units in British Honduras in providing air support. She will later be taking part with other ships in national and multi-national exercises in the area.

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Can he answer certain points about these manoeuvres? It has been reported that the date of them has been advanced recently. If that is so, why? With respect to the manoeuvres in British Honduras, is notice normally given to the Guatemalan Government of our intention to carry out such operations? Thirdly, with respect to the manoeuvres in the Eastern Caribbean, may we have an assurance that, insofar as they involve United States territory, they will not involve the use of the base at Guantanamo?

Lord Balniel: These reinforcement exercises are in connection with a British

dependency and are a regular annual feature. Notice does not have to be given to any other country. The exercises have been planned to take place between 31st January and 31st March, and those are long-standing dates. I require notice of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Dr. David Owen: Accepting that the British Honduras exercise had been planned for a long time, have the Government had in recent weeks any grounds for believing that there is a threat to the security of British Honduras? Have the British Honduras Government raised the question of independence recently? Finally, are these multi-national exercises to involve our N.A.T.O. allies? Have our N.A.T.O. allies been consulted over the recent possibilities of any tension?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman's first and second questions are more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs but I find it hard to believe that Guatemala would wish to attack a British colony which we intend, and are well able, to defend. The wider exercises do involve our N.A.T.O. allies.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answers are satisfactory, particularly his reply to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen)? Since British Honduras is a small and happy colony with a freely-elected Government honestly run by Mr. Price, any attempt to press Guatemalan territorial claims will, I hope, be firmly resisted.

Lord Balniel: I take note of what my lion. Friend has said, but, as I have pointed out, these wider matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Palmer: What consultations, it any, have there been with the American Government, which normally take more than a paternal interest in politics in this part of the world?

Lord Balniel: The American Government are well aware of this long-standing exercise, and, of course, there have been consultation with all the Governments concerned.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is my right hon. Friend surprised to see this further illustration of how handy it is to have an aircraft carrier around occasionally, either for exercises or to deal with or prevent trouble?

Lord Balniel: That is another question but there is no doubt that the "Ark Royal" is a very fine ship; nor is there any doubt about the wisdom of the Government's decision to retain her in use.

Dr. Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if there is any change in the situation or any question of a threat to the security of British Honduras the Foreign Secretary will make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity?

Lord Balniel: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Were there to be a substantial change in the situation I feel sure that a statement would be made.

Mr. Ogden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will never need to apologise to the House for using British forces to protect the interests of the people of British Honduras and Britain itself? In view of his statement, which I accept, that the exercises have been of long-standing, can he say how it is that the reports outside link them so closely with guerrilla movements outside the borders of British Honduras? What has happened to his information department?

Lord Balniel: I noticed those reports in various media. They arise, I think, from the fact that reports allege that Guatemalan troops have been concentrating on the border. There is no evidence to support this. Guatemala has a terrorist problem on the border, and it is probably the linking of that fact with these exercises that has given rise to widespread public interest.

Orders of the Day — TRADING REPRESENTATIONS (DISABLED PERSONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.12 a.m.

Mr. David Reed: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
At the outset I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable woman without whom it is highly unlikely the House would be debating this Bill. Her name is Mrs. Winifred Woods, and she lives at Chilton in my constituency. I can say without doubt that she is one of the hardest-working women I have ever met. Each night and almost every weekend she drives around County Durham and further afield in her work on behalf of the disabled. She is disabled herself, and her energy in pursuing her objectives on behalf of the different organisations with which she is involved tremendously impresses me.
It was Mrs. Woods who first drew my attention to the practice which today's Bill is intended to stamp out. Mrs. Woods' description of her attempts to track down the sort of racketeers at whom the Bill is aimed is like a detective story. She tried to find out what the firms we are talking about were doing. What she says was, "Every time we got on their tails they went to earth." She chased them around County Durham and tried to find out what was happening but could never get close enough to see what was going on.
Then she enlisted the aid of one other person to whom I want to pay tribute, a journalist on the local evening paper in Darlington, Mr. Peter Bibby, who works for the Evening Despatch. It was he who exposed this racket in County Durham for what it really was. It was his enterprise which showed up what was taking place.
What Peter Bibby did was to take a job with a firm which was selling door-to-door allegedly on behalf of the disabled. The name of that firm was Physically Disabled Supplies, and it operates from Camberwell, London,


This is what Peter Bibby wrote in the Evening Despatch on 17th June last year:
The centre of one of the North's dirtiest and most underhand con-tricks is based at Newton Aycliffe. Head of the North-Fast base is an Aycliffe man—a man who makes his living trading on the misfortunes of others.
He describes the activities of that man and his sales team.
Later in the story he quotes the brief, which the sales supervisor gives to each of his salesmen. This is part of it:
A lot of people want to give donations for the handicapped but don't want to buy anything. Well, we're not a charity, but don't press that. Just say sorry, you can't accept it. When they start to put the money back say, 'But I will knock something off the price to the next old age pensioner I see'.
The sales supervisor adds:
Nine times out of ten they'll give you the money.
The brief each salesman was given was:
Good morning, I'm from the physically handicapped. I wondered if you'd like to buy some goods to help?
Peter Bibby goes on to describe just how he thought the firms get away with it. What he said was:
Apparently the firms get away with it all by employing a few handicapped folk packing goods in London. These people are paid a small amount and the bumper profits on the shoddy goods go to the directors, the organisers and the schoolboy-student sales force throughout the country.
That in a nutshell describes the practice with which I hope this Bill will deal. If it was an isolated case, if this activity in Newton Aycliffe was the only place in the country where it was happening, then it could have been tackled on a local basis. Certainly the publicity which this firm got at the time drove it underground. For a short time at least it found it difficult to sell what were very shoddy goods door-to-door simply because householders in the locality knew what was going on and knew what to be careful about.
Since the draft of my original Bill was published I have had letters from all over the country describing similar activities. These letters come from as far afield as Cornwall and Glasgow. It seems that all over the country different firms are taking householders for a ride.
One letter from Surrey was addressed to Mrs. Phyllis Forman, who is the Secretary of the Legal and Parliamentary

Committee of the Central Council for the Disabled. That letter said:
Last week our house was visited by a door-to-door student salesgirl representing Distrade of 123 Foundry Lane, Shirley, Southampton. She was selling children's books, dolls in plastic bags, etc. and presented a sales authorisation card. This was of postcard size, gave the address of the company and its telephone number and stated that the holder had been appointed as a door-to-door seller of their products.
The writer speaks about contacting the police and trying to get something done about this firm, and goes on:
We have not heard of any developments but I think you will agree that this is the type of shady, semi-nefarious activity that Mr. David Reed M.P. should be and most probably is covering in his Bill.
The Cornwall Disabled Association wrote to the Central Council for the Disabled saying:
From time to time we are plagued with door-to-door salesmen in Cornwall who represent that their products are either made or packed by disabled persons. They often give the impression that the profits go to the local disabled which of course they do not. If this occurs at about the time we are fund raising ourselves, e.g. organising flag days or charity concerts etc. the Cornwall Disabled Association gets a bad press because people say we are overdoing it.
Another letter is from a King's Lynn-based organisation, the National Federation of St. Raphael's Clubs for the Disabled. Its administrator, Mr. Keith Goldsworthy, has been conducting a campaign against this sort of activity for many years. This is an extract from a letter which he circulated to editors of a number of newspapers to try to get them to take an interest and publicise what was happening:
Our claim is still the same as our original letter to you. Usually there is a locally appointed supervisor with numerous agents and the takings can vary from £50 to £175 a day with the sales staff receiving one-third of their takings as wages.
It is clear from these examples that the practice I am describing is just about identical throughout the country, with firms, no matter what part of the country they are operating in, using the same techniques and tackling people in the same way. If we look at the names it will be seen that even these have a similar ring about them—"Distrade", "D. W. Products", "Disvendors". All are variations on the same theme.
At the invitation of one of these firms, Disvendors, I visited the factory in Nottingham to see its activities. I want to be fair about it because the managing director, Derek Radage, was quite open about all his activities. He was willing to show me any part of his establishment and answer any questions. He told me that his turnover as a company was between £120,000 and £150,000 a year. Of that the wage bill for his disabled employees was between £30,000 and £40,000 a year. People with quite severe disabilities were working in totally unsuitable conditions for between £10 and £14 a week for 42 hours' work.
It was the physical appearance of this establishment which first surprised me. It looked like a disused warehouse and was in a back street in Nottingham. The conditions were totally unsuitable for the people who were working there. There were no properly designed entrances and ramps to enable disabled people to get in, no specially designed toilets and no medical facilities. There were 27 people working in one room with no supervision to ensure that if anything went wrong the proper action could be taken quickly.
Mr. Radage claims that he has 60 disabled people on his books working in three locations throughout the country. What concerns me is that those 60 disabled people working day by day are keeping a full-time able-bodied sales force of 120 selling from door to door. Disvendors has an exceptionally high ratio of disabled employees to sales staff. Many of the companies which I have investigated have a much smaller ratio. One company has one disabled director on its books with a £ 1 share in the business so that the firm can make a doorstep claim that what it is selling will help the disabled. In many firms not only is the ratio of disabled employees to the sales force very low but the profits to the disabled are low when one compares what the housewives hand over on the doorstep with the amount which gets through to disabled people.
A favourite product of these firms is the de-misting cloth used by motorists to clean car windscreens. One such product manufactured by a firm which I investigated has a doorstep selling price of 20p, of which 10p goes immediately to the salesman as commission, 7p is taken by

the firm as its manufacturing costs, overheads and profit and only 3p gets through to the disabled employees. The housewife cheerfully hands over her 20p thinking that she is helping disabled people who are doing their best to earn a decent living, but only a tiny proportion ever gets to the people she is trying to help.
The products which these firms sell are often extremely shoddy. They are manufacturers' rejects or the end-of-production runs, things which would not sell on their own merits if these firms were not using the doorstep gimmick of saying that the profits go to help the disabled. This is a racket out of which a lot of money is made by trading on public sympathy.
In 1958 a courageous attempt was made to do something about this practice in a Bill which received at each stage a great deal of support from both sides of the House and was given unanimous approval. That Bill became the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, which was designed to tackle these firms once and for all. The Bill we are debating today is designed to amend it. The then hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, Mr. Victor Collins, said on Third Reading:
If the House accepts the Bill today and it becomes law, it will stop this racket. It will stop the cheating of the warm-hearted public and, most important of all, it will assist the blind, the crippled and the otherwise disabled, who deserve all the help we can possibly give them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1958; Vol. 589, c. 1486.]
That was the intention of the original Act, and it worked for a short time, but over the long run the Act, however well intentioned, has not worked in practice.
The main provision of the Act was the establishment of a register to be maintained by the Department of Employment, and any firm which wished to make a doorstep claim that it was selling on behalf of the disabled had to apply to the Department to be included on the register. This was a commonsense measure intended to be a curb on the activities of these firms. The Secretary of State had to be satisfied on a number of criteria before granting registration. The officials in the Department have done their best on a day-to-day basis to make sure that the register works, but it is impossible to make it bite.
There are 40 firms on the register dispersed throughout the country. One


of the shady tricks which the firms have been adopting is to build up their disabled work force at the time of application for registration so that it looked good in the return to the Department, and then gradually pay off the disabled people until the time for re-registration, when they build it up again. It would require an army of officials constantly to check that the firms are employing the number of disabled persons they claim to be employing and are distributing to them the profit they claim to be distributing.
What was originally intended as a regulatory machine has come to be regarded as a licence to enable these firms to carry on their activities. On-the-doorstep firms have been hiding under a useful close of respectability. Householders have been given the idea that because the firms are registered with the Department everything they are doing is all right because the Government have checked them, and they think that if they buy from the salesman the money will go to disabled people.
I can illustrate how successfully firms have used registration from the sales literature which they push out with their products. I have a leaflet here of Household Supplies, Huntingdon Street, Nottingham. On this small sales ticket in the biggest letters are the words "Packed by disabled persons" also clearly stated are the words:
Registered under the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958".
Those words give the householder the impression that the firm is completely reputable. The householder automatically believes in the firm because of the fact of registration.
I have a leaflet of D. W. Products, with registered office and workshop at Woodlands Park Road, South Tottenham. Apart from the name of the product, the wards in the biggest letters on the leaflet are:
Packed by disabled workers in our own workshop
and there is also a note to the effect that the firm is registered under the relevant Act.
I also have here a sales card of Disvendors, a very official looking document, which contains the words:

Registered under the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958".
By showing this at the door the salesman immediately conveys the impression that the firm's activities have been carefully checked and are perfectly aboveboard.
Abuses of registration go much further than that. One unscrupulous organisation has been making a profit out of registration simply by handing out its registration to other traders on a day-to-day basis.
The Bill seeks to deal with this practice in what I believe to be the only effective way, by putting an immediate curb on these firms by withdrawing their right to register with the Department. The idea is to make what these firms are doing completely open. There is nothing in the Bill to stop any of the firms I have mentioned, or any of the 40 firms registered with the Department, continuing to sell from door to door. They can go on doing this—with the one exception that any product they are attempting to sell in this way will have to be sold on its own merits. The housewife will have to be shown what they are selling and will then be able to decide whether it is worth buying. She will not be conned into believing that it is made, produced and packed by disabled people. On this basis alone there is a chance of putting a curb on what these firms are doing.
The Bill intends to make certain that only reputable charitable organisations and certain others detailed in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Bill will be able to make a doorstep claim that what they are doing is on behalf of the disabled. It will mean that the housewife will be able to demand proof that the salesman at her door is from a reputable registered charity, and if he cannot produce that sort of proof she will be able with a clear conscience to send him off. She will know that if he is not from a registered charity he is not allowed to make the doorstep claim of selling on behalf of the disabled.
I do not claim that the Bill as it stands will completely stamp out these activities. In fact, I do not believe that any piece of legislation would be able to stop the real rogues involved in this business. I only wish it were possible to draft something to stop them. But some are so


determined to make as much money as they can that they will go on flaunting whatever penalties this House may decide to put in their way. What they should realise is that if the Bill is approved by the House and becomes law, the penalties will be quite severe, not just for the salesman himself but for the company for which he works. The Bill provides for a fine of £400, and, on conviction on indictment, up to two years' imprisonment. I hope that if the House approves the Bill and these firms continue their activities, the courts will regard these fines as essential to put the absolute rogues out of business.
There are a number of other provisions in the Bill which seek to extend the prohibition, which in existing legislation simply refers to selling at the doorstep or by post, to the business of exchanging goods.

Mr. Harold Gurden: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he explain how people associated with reputable organisations who go to the doorstep to sell goods will be prevented from using unsatisfactory methods?

Mr. Reed: Because the only people who will be permitted to make the doorstep claim will be those who are from registered charities. Anybody else who seeks to make such a claim will find himself liable to the penalties under the Bill. Registered charities and a number of other organisations, such as local authorities which may want to sell door to door to build, say, a local swimming pool for disabled people in their locality, are specifically exempted from these provisions. The provisions are aimed at the rogue firms.

Mr. Gurden: I understand the situation in regard to salesmen from the reputable and registered organisations, but I am wondering how the Bill would prevent the type of salesman who employs undesirable methods belonging to an organisation which is approved?

Mr. Reed: The Bill does not seek to deal with a number of abuses which I believe have been recognised following the Charities Act, 1960. I do not think it would be possible to deal with that sort of activity in a Bill which seeks to curb certain activities of firms and to

make Amendments to that Act; like the hon. Gentleman, I have heard about one or two cases such as he outlined, but that would require amendment to other legislation and not to the Act which this Bill seeks to amend.

Mr. David Weitzman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Bill still preserves the right of a person who carries on business where the goods are produced by a disabled person's own labour?

Mr. Reed: That is right. There was no intention to stop the man working at home or setting up with a small group of friends to produce their own goods by their own labour and selling them. These are specifically exempted from the Bill's provisions, which are aimed at firms which are in the business for profit and nothing else.

Mr. Ernle Money: Is not one matter for grave concern the fact that officially-sponsored disablement weeks by people like the St. Raphael's Clubs are being deliberately exploited by certain firms—in other words, that such firms are following up appeals by bona fide organisations? Although this Bill cannot cure that sort of activity, one hopes that the kind of publicity which will follow this debate will put the public on their guard about such matters.

Mr. Reed: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that these firms often move in after there has been a local appeal by an organisation like the St. Raphael's Clubs because the public have become accustomed to contributing to such a worthwhile organisation. Firms use the opportunity to get in and sell their goods.
Other provisions of the Bill will extend the prohibition to the idea of exchanging goods on the doorstep which existing legislation does not cover. These are the firms which leave a carrier bag on the doorstep with a note asking the householder to fill it with woollens and clothes, and when their representatives come back to pick up the bag they offer a plastic comb or something of the sort. Registered charities and other registered organisations can continue with that sort of activity, but firms which are doing this for profit will be subject to the penalties in the Bill.
There are a number of other points that I could make, but some of my hon. Friends and co-sponsors hope to mention these matters. Furthermore, I understand that the Minister intends to deal with one slight danger which has been recognised; namely, that even though firms are in this business for profit only, they at least provide a form of employment for a limited number of disabled people. I understand that my lion. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham) hopes to deal with this matter if he gets the opportunity to speak.
I should like to say a sincere word of thanks for the great help I have received in drafting this Bill, particularly to Duncan Guthrie and his staff at the Central Council for the Disabled, who have taken a great deal of trouble to gather the necessary information. This was a matter of which they had been aware for some time, and they were delighted when I went to see them about legislation. I also wish to thank Mr. Keith Goldsworthy, who has been campaigning for many years for action on this matter, for providing me with information. I should also like to say a word of thanks to the Under-Secretary—and his staff—for his personal acceptance of and belief in what the Bill was seeking to do, and also for the indications of support from Government sources he has been able to give me.
The Bill seeks to stamp out a totally disgusting practice. There are a number of rackets in the country by people who have been making money by living off the backs of disabled people. To illustrate how some of these firms are rogues even since the publication of the Bill last week, one firm has already changed its tack on the doorstep. The claim is no longer to be helping the disabled. Instead, it claims to help the aged. However, even though my Bill does not seek to deal with that, this type of firm should know that, while the disabled are in a special position because of the existence of the 1958 Act, if firms make a false claim about the manufacture of any product it is possible that the Trade Descriptions Act will cover that activity and render them liable to the penalties which my Bill also includes.
Although the Bill is an extremely short one, its size bears no relation to its

importance for those whom it seeks to help. I hope not only that it will put some real rogues out of business but that it will divert the genuine sympathy of those members of the public who really want to help the disabled whenever they can and that in doing that it will divert the cash involved to genuine, reputable organisations which seek to help the disabled. I have seen a newspaper estimate that about £1 million a year goes into the wrong hands as a result of the practices of which I complain. How true that is, I do not know. Suffice it to say that a great deal of money, instead of helping those whom its contributors wish to help, goes straight into the pockets of people who are in the business simply to make money. I hope that this Bill will tackle those racketeers who make a disgraceful living in this way.
I conclude my remarks simply by commending the Bill to the House.

11.42 a.m.

Mr. John Astor: I am very grateful to have this opportunity to welcome the Bill and I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) both on his choice of subject and on the admirable manner in which he introduced it this morning.
The well-being of the disabled is a matter which commands wide support on both sides of the House. It has always been a feature of our debates concerning the disabled that they have been conducted on a non-party basis. That is reflected in the fact that the sponsors of the Bill come from all the three parties represented in this House.
It is refreshing to be able to discuss a subject on a non-party basis. This kind of co-operation has been helpful in furthering the interests of the disabled and in introducing improvements which have been brought about already. A great deal remains to be done, but this Bill is another step in the right direction.
I do not know the extent of the abuse that the Bill seeks to stamp out, but the hon. Gentleman has referred to a sufficient number of examples to give genuine cause for concern. In any event, even if it is on a very small scale, the practice of playing on people's emotions and sympathies at the expense of the disabled is a thoroughly despicable one


which should be stamped out. Offenders should be subjected to the penalties in the Bill.
It is not only the immediate effect of the activities of these operators which is a worry. It is more far-reaching and serious in that these activities reflect on the good name of the disabled. It is immensely offensive to disabled people to have this kind of patronising sympathy for which they have never asked because they wish to stand on their own feet on level terms with other people. What is more, it is bound to disillusion and antagonise generous-hearted members of the public and to make it more difficult for genuine and reputable firms representing the disabled to carry on business.
It is especially unfortunate that, under the 1958 Act, it is possible for unscrupulous people to operate under a cloak of respectability by carrying registration cards which give the appearance of having the backing of the Department. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that all firms on the register are disreputable. However, there is a certain section of unscrupulous people who take advantage of these opportunities.
It is no wonder that the Bill has the support of a large number of well-known organisations genuinely supporting the disabled. I have been approached by the Royal National Institute for the Blind which has been concerned about the problem for many years. Blind people have been subjected to a great deal of abuse, and the institute has been pressing for a Bill of this kind since as far back as 1963. I am very pleased that an opportunity has been given to this House to consider amending legislation and I am confident that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to welcome the terms of the Bill and help it on its way.
Finally, may I apologise to the hon. Member for Sedgefield since I shall not be able to stay to hear the end of the debate. But I want to wish him well. I hope that his Bill will receive a Second Reading.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: Nothing is more irritating to a housewife than the call of someone trying to sell her something on the doorstep. Fairly recently,

this House enacted legislation concerning orders obtained in this way. But when an attempt is made to effect a sale by representing that the goods offered are produced by the disabled and sympathetic consideration is sought by the suggestion that the profits will accrue to the disabled, naturally enough a housewife will find it difficult to resist that form of pressure. Just as it would be disgraceful to take pennies out of a blind man's can, obviously it is a heinous offence to try to make a sale on the basis of false representations of this kind.
Unfortunately, the practice exists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Mr. David Reed) said, it was because of it that the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958, was enacted. No doubt it was felt that that legislation would cure the evil by making it an offence unless such sales were made by persons on a register kept by the Minister. Applications for registration were to be vetted and granted only where the conditions of employment of the disabled were proved satisfactory or where a local authority or certain authorised bodies were varrying on the business.
As my hon. Friend has shown, that was not a real safeguard. It was easy to have conditions which satisfied the Minister at the time of application for registration and thereafter to reduce to a nominal figure the number of disabled people employed or to alter the conditions under which they were employed originally.
The 1958 Act provided for complaints to be made and the Minister was given power to withdraw registration. However, for that provision to be workable it would require an army of officials to see that there was no default. There is no doubt that the provisions of the Act have been abused. A number of businesses make considerable profits by selling goods which they represent as the products of the disabled, who are paid low wages and whose duties often consist of menial tasks such as packing the goods.
It is clear from the examples to which my hon. Friend referred that the Department cannot safeguard the public against sales of this kind under the provisions of the 1958 Act. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on seizing the opportunity to remedy the position in his Bill.
I understand that the Bill will abolish the register and put in its place a provision that such businesses may be carried on only by a local authority or certain authorised bodies. That will mean that in effect the profits from such sales will go, as they should, to the disabled and that, quite properly, the penalty is increased where something wrong is done in defiance of the provisions of the Bill.
I should like to refer to one matter which I hope will be considered in Committee. In the 1958 Act registration was not required when the person carrying on the business was substantially disabled and all goods about which representations were made were
either produced, prepared, packed or otherwise made ready for sale by his own labour.
No doubt those words were too wide. My hon. Friend seeks to put in their place that the sales can be carried out by the substantially disabled person if all the goods were
produced by his own labour.
That appears to be too restrictive. I hope that in Committee we might consider some alteration as there may be certain genuine cases where the disabled person seeks to do business but cannot show that the whole of it is the result of his own labour.
I particularly welcome the Bill because it will not only protect the housewife but will help the disabled. Any legislation in that direction should be encouraged.
I am glad that the need for registration is to be abolished because this required action by the Government. Here I make a point of criticism of the Government. To judge from their administration of the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act it does not seem to be very effective. Registration of the disabled by local authorities, the vital basis of that Act, has still not been done by some local authorities. In my view the Government, quite wrongly, despite pressure from many of us, have refused to publish the figures of those local authorities where there has been registration. That information might have aroused the laggard, negligent authorities to take action.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend most heartily on the work he has done in promoting it.

11.53 a.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: I also welcome this short but important Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on introducing it, doing his homework so well and bringing such excellent examples before the House.
I am pleased to be a sponsor of the Bill because indirectly it helps the war disabled. I must declare an interest immediately. I am the Vice-Chairman of the Ex-Service War Disabled Help Department which comes under the Joint Committee of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and the British Red Cross Society. We had a meeting this week, like other organisations, including the Central Council for the Disabled, we also want to support the Bill because it will greatly help the war disabled.
The Bill will certainly tighten the noose around the necks of the wide boys who cleverly play on the emotions of people, especially housewives. They spin out some heart-rending tale and end by saying that their goods are made by the war disabled and that all profits go to the disabled. They even wear a couple of last war medals on their chest to make the story ring true.
I hope that the Bill will get national publicity so that the unsuspecting housewife can be alerted and warned that she must be a little more discriminating. When one of these fellows going from door to door calls upon her, before buying anything she should ask whether he has a pedlar's certificate or identification form from one of the registered charities for which he claims to be selling.
I realise that now is not the time to raise this matter, but I should like a complete review of the general licensing system on door-to-door selling because it needs overhauling and bringing up to date. The present legislation is not all that perfect because there are four Acts which relate to door-to-door selling. There are the Pedlars Acts, 1871 and 1881, which require salesmen to be licensed by the police. Then, as we have heard today, there is the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958, and the Hire Purchase Act, 1965. I realise how difficult it would be to have a comprehensive licensing system and to administer it. Nevertheless the present system is not


foolproof. It needs overhauling and tighening up. There are still too many loopholes for the unscrupulous.
People should be warned that if a man comes on to a doorstep and claims that he is selling on behalf of, say, Lord Roberts Workshop or the British Legion, it simply is not so. He is not selling for them, because neither of those organisations sells its products on a door-to-door basis. They have numerous outlets, like agricultural shows, especially the Royal Show. The bulk of their goods are made in ex-Service factories and they go straight to the trade. Therefore, anybody coming on to a doorstep and saying "I am from the Lord Roberts Workshop" is incorrect. That can be checked immediately.
There are other organisations operating industries for the benefit of war pensioners and disabled persons. Will the Under-Secretary, when he replies to this debate, tell me whether such organisations are required to register under the present Act and what their position would be under the proposed amending Bill?
I live in Herefordshire, which is an extremely rural part of England. In the countryside the racket is slightly different. A large car usually drives up and the caller shows a sample of some work which he claims is made by the disabled. It is usually a piece of furniture, which may be quite well made. He then explains that his disabled men need more capital to buy raw materials to complete the suite of furniture and he hopes that one will order it. This type of fellow is a pure criminal. Once he gets an order for the suite of furniture and the money, the customer never sees him or the goods again.
Today we have heard of several ingenious but dishonest forms of selling. The public should be warned of yet another system. One is sent a parcel with perhaps a toast rack or some brushes inside labelled "Made by the disabled". The note inside asks the recipient to send what he thinks the goods are worth—they have no fixed price on them—but adds that it is hoped he will send a little extra money for these very deserving men. This is trading on sympathy. On checking the address it will be found to be a post box forwarding address which makes it

almost impossible for the police to trace the sender.
Today there are still over 300,000 war disabled. The Ex-Service War Disabled Help Department received 15,729 applications last year. To half of these applicants it was able to give loans, grants or equipment. The other half were helped with advice and welfare. The organisation has a national network of visitors so that it is in close touch with the entire country.
If shoddy goods, selling at inflated prices, are hawked around labelled "Made by the disabled", especially the war disabled, when they are not, the general public, who on the whole are most generous and sympathetic, will not feel inclined to be so generous and sympathetic when a bona fide salesman calls or when they get an appeal letter in their post boxes. They know that they have been taken for a ride the week before and therefore they will not be so generous. That is why I welcome the Bill. I hope that housewives can be alerted and that they will try to be more discriminating.

12 noon

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on what I consider to be a first-class Measure and one which should be supported fully by the House.
Having said that, I must go on to say that it is a dreadful reflection on the morality of the society in which we live that such a Measure is necessary because people are engaged in the sickening behaviour of conning the public into parting with hard-earned money under the false impression that they are helping those less fortunate than themselves.
I know that there are those who will argue that one result of the implementation of the Bill might be to reduce the amount of employment available to disabled people. That may be so but in my view, rather than bring about a reduction in employment, it will result in a reduction in the exploitation of the disabled; and the sooner that we as a society realise that physically disabled people are not helpless freaks but are willing and able to play an active and useful part in society, given the opportunity to do so, the better. It is society's


job to provide the opportunity for the physically disabled to play the part in society which they are well able to do.
That is why I want to follow the argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. There is no doubt that if local authorities get down to the job of registration and of identifying the problem, society as a whole can give the physically handicapped the opportunity which they so richly deserve of getting a full-time job and thus doing a good job for themselves and for society generally.

12.3 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I, too, warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on having introduced this extremely useful, vigorous and what I hope will prove to be forceful piece of legislation.
One of the encouraging things that has happened over the last couple of years has been the way in which various forms of cheap practice, and what used to be common law cheats, are being winkled out by Parliament. We have had legislation dealing with inertia selling by post. We have had legislation dealing with various aspects of forced pressure salesmanship. But no practice has been more deserving of scrutiny and criticism than the mean exploitation of the disabled which the Bill sets out to cure.
I had the honour of raising this matter in the House when, on 21st May last year, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) raised the whole question of the operation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I then brought to the notice of the House the activities of some of the door-to-door salesmen in East Anglia purporting to act on behalf of disabled people and firms representing them. I said:
I hope it will be possible for the Law Officers or the Home Office to take a careful look at what I consider to be one of the meanest and cruellest frauds…to be practised on this section of the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May. 1971; Vol. 817, c. 1676.]

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sedgefield has taken advantage of his good fortune in the Ballot to bring this Bill before the House. I hope that it will be given an unopposed passage through the House, and I wish it good fortune.
This Measure will do two things. First, it will deal with the difficult pressure which so many charitable organisations face. In this period of mass media, in this period of constant genuine appeals for charitable support from organisations which we all respect, Outset, Shelter, and many others, it is undoubtedly difficult, and particularly so for some of the unspectacular charities, as so many of the charities supporting the disabled are, to make appeals in the ordinary way. And it becomes doubly difficult if not only are large sums of money being taken by thoroughly dishonest people in that way but that every now and again the public find themselves cheated, tricked or sometimes downright insulted by people purporting to act on behalf of disabled persons' organisations. As has been said, not only is it the case that money which should be going to the disabled is being tricked away from them, but the genuine sympathy of the public is often lost as a result of disgraceful activities of that sort. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards dealing with the difficulty.
The second aspect is that mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), namely, that quite often, in order to give a veneer of legality to their squalid enterprises the people behind them have brought in one or two disabled people on the good old system that to qualify for support for the sale of Christmas cards to copy genuine enterprises it was possible to change someone's name in order to say "painted entirely by foot" or "by mouth" as the case may be. That kind of racket has been adopted by some unscrupulous firms. Then there is the classic Punch story about the small tradesman who put a notice in the front of his shop saying "For the blind", when everybody knew that it was for a new blind for the front of his premises.
That kind of thing has been done deliberately by some firms. They have


either employed small numbers of disabled people, in humiliating circumstances and vastly under-paid, to give themselves a veneer of respectability or, equally bad, they have employed disabled people in sweat-shop conditions in their own homes in order to get cheap goods so that they could make a handsome profit on them.
I join the hon. Member for Sedgefield in praising the work of Mr. Keith Goldsworthy of the National Federation of St. Raphael's Clubs. From the start this organisation has brought the sort of thing about which I have been telling the House to the attention of hon. Members. It is organisations such as that, which do so much for the disabled, which will benefit most from the fact that in future when an appeal is made people who answer it can be sure that their efforts will help genuinely disabled people who really need their support.

12.10 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: This Bill seeks to get rid of despicable rackets. There is nothing lower than individuals who crawl in after people who, though blind or disabled, are trying to earn their living, and con the housewife. The forceful speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) was a notable addition to the debate, but every hon. Member who has spoken is aware of the depths to which these persons sink when they seek to con housewives in this way.
I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on the admirable way in which he has introduced the Bill. This means that we can all make very short speeches, because he has put most of the material before the House. I admire the way in which he has been able to seize hold of a subject which has enabled him to do two things simultaneously. Most of us would want to use this opportunity to put the whole world to rights with a huge Bill to solve everything at once. My hon. Friend has instead taken two vital matters; given consumer protection to the housewife and a tremendous fillip to the genuine need for the disabled, who want to act as normally as they can in their community, to earn their living and not to exist in institutions or homes but to take their place as ordinary citizens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) reminded us of a third thing connected with the Bill. That is the tremendous move for therapy for the disabled, which has changed from occupational therapy to industrial therapy. This is a major breakthrough. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Bill is the other facet of that. If there is to be an extension of therapy for the disabled, the kind of protection that the Bill provides is the other half of the problem in order to ensure that that extension can go on in the right way.
I follow very much the contribution made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor). I, too, would like to bring to the notice of the House the support of blind people for this Bill. I have received a letter from Tom Parker, who is known to many hon. Members as Secretary of the National League of the Blind, urging the quick passage of the Bill and the complete support of the House and putting his organisation firmly behind it.
Blind people have been aware since 1958 that the Act passed in that year was a cloak of respectability. They knew that their members were among the most exploited. The League makes a number of points which should be considered by the House and in Committee. I wonder whether, in addition to the safeguards which are in the Bill, something could be done to ensure that the credentials not just of the person selling but of the goods themselves are investigated. This is the basic idea of getting value for money.
In other words, one would not try to suggest that an inferior article should be accepted just because it had been made by a blind person. Blind people claim that what they make is as good as anything made by a sighted person, and they do not want to get by on shoddy goods. They would be happy to be able to say, "This is made by a blind man and the craftsmanship is unique and worth while, and we do not want, even though the Act protects us, it to be bought on a charity basis."
They would like consideration also of the way in which the Act will operate in localities. One racket which has been


condemned today is an area-by-area sales campaign, in which the slugs crawl into one area, leaving their slime over the doorsteps, and, once they have finished. move completely out of that area and into another. We shall have to consider an extension, under the 1958 Act, of the way in which local authorities have power to deal with this. Might it not be possible, under this Bill or another, to require notification to the local authority of such a sales campaign, even though it does not fall with the provisions of the Act?
Publicity will be the most important thing to flow from this Bill. Local newspapers should be able to notify citizens of the way that it will work, and to whom they can apply to protect themselves from racketeers. The mass media must also be used, especially television, to let housewives know their rights. A housewife should be able to know very quickly how to get on to the telephone to the right person without going through ten departments of the town hall before she can alert them to operate the penalties of the Bill.
The penalty prescribed by the Bill is inevitably limited by the general provisions of such penalties, but one would hope that, if the Bill is passed, such penalties will be operated stringently and that publicity will be given to the way in which people who have broken the law pay for their misdemeanours.
In commending this Bill, with the support of the blind people, may I pay tribute to those blind people? The House was concerned last week and will be concerned again on Monday with unemployment. In an area or a region where unemployment reaches one in ten of the working population, we are naturally profoundly disturbed. But blind people give their support to the Bill at a time when one in ten blind people who are able to work are out of work because of the general employment situation. It is one of the blots on our economic society that, when the economic pressure is on it is the blind and the disabled who are often the first to feel the worst effects of it.
Although this means that blind people feel the economic problem to a greater degree than the sighted people, it is to their credit that they, like hon. Members, give their support to this Bill.

12.16 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I also warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on a good speech.
The Bill seeks to amend the 1958 Act, so I thought that the best way that I could try to understand it was to look up the proceedings on that Act, which was introduced by Mr. Victor Collins, as he then was. I was interested to find that the hon. Member who acclaimed as the real author and sponsor of that Act was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who 14 years ago was Parliamentary Secretary to the same Department. That shows his long and benevolent record in these matters, and I know that the tradition is carried on by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): May I assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend is just as interested, if not more so, in the whole problem of the disabled today as he then was?

Mr. McLaren: I am sure that that is so.
As the hon. Member for Sedgefield told us, the mischief which the Bill aims to eradicate is that of people who fraudulently impose on householders by pretending to sell on behalf of the disabled or the blind when in fact they are not doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) said, any form of house-to-house selling needs to be carefully watched. Door-to-door selling is different from shop selling. A woman goes into a shop because she wants to buy something or inspect the goods. She is free to leave whenever she wishes, On the doorstep the seller may have called unexpectedly and his visit may be unwelcome. The husband may be at work and the wife may be overborne by persuasive talk. Indeed, she may buy something she does not want simply to get rid of the man on the doorstep, or she may be credulous and believe anything she is told.
For these and other reasons house-to-house selling should be regulated and dishonest people should not be allowed to do it. The method of regulation


adopted in the 1958 Act was mainly by registration with the Secretary of State. The method proposed in the Bill would remove the need to register but extend the exemption procedure to all bodies registered under the Charities Act, 1960.
I take a personal interest in this matter because I am the deputy chairman, unpaid of course, of a society which provides employment for the blind. It is called General Welfare of the Blind. We employ about 100 blind people in London and Luton. We also make use of the house-to-house direct method of selling. Indeed, between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of our turnover is disposed of in this way.
We sell soap, which is one of the traditional blind industries, and more recently we have developed a trade in aerosols, bath salts, shampoos, cleaners and other goods of this kind. We find that this method of selling helps us to provide employment for the blind. We can get a better price for our goods this way than if we were to go through the normal channels of trade and sold to wholesalers at a discount.
I am glad to say that we shall be in no way adversely affected by the Bill, because we are a registered charity under the Charities Act. We welcome the Measure because if the black sheep are eliminated, the pastures for the white sheep will become all the more improved.
I will describe the precautions that we take against fraud. We issue cards, one of which I hold in my hand, on which we name the society and give its address. These credential cards are signed by our general manager. Printed on each card is a price list, and this protects the housewife against paying too much. She can verify from the card that the price being asked corresponds with that printed on it. The card further states that the holder is not entitled to collect subscriptions on behalf of the society but is merely there to sell goods. It gives the name and address of the representative and bears his or her photograph. It also bears a number to make it easy to trace the seller in case of complaint. The wrappers of our goods also bear the name and address of our society.
I hope that these precautions go some way to meeting the points that the hon.

Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) had in mind. I have pleasure in telling the House that we receive many letters from householders expressing their appreciation of our work, asking us to call again and saying that they are recommending us to their friends.
I have given these details of the practical experience of my society because I thought that they would be of interest to hon. Members. I have great pleasure in warmly welcoming the Bill and I wish it every success in its further stages.

12.26 p.m.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I begin like all hon. Members by welcoming the Bill and by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Mr. David Reed) on his choice. I am proud to be a sponsor of the Measure because since entering the House I have expressed a general interest in the problems of the disabled.
I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the Bill relating to the possible loss of employment opportunities—and, hence, the possibility of unemployment—for disabled people. It has always been one of the major claims or planks in the argument of firms operating in this sphere that they are providing good employment opportunities for disabled people. The Central Council for the Disabled is worried about this aspect of the Measure, though it should not be a problem to concern us unduly.
I gather that about 40 firms of that nature are registered with the Department. Apparently they employ among them only about 100 disabled people. My hon. Friend suggested that one of the firms he visited claimed to be employing 60 disabled people, which suggests that the other 39 registered firms are employing only 40 in total. This highlights the most unsavoury aspect of the operations of these companies. because they have undoubtedly been exploiting general public sympathy towards the disabled.
The Bill will not prevent those firms from continuing to sell from door to door but it will prevent them from making spurious claims on behalf of the disabled. Reputably manufactured and good products should sell on their merits and not as a result of a general desire by the public to help disabled people. One


hopes, therefore, that firms in this category which are reputable will be able to continue.
When the 1958 Act was going through Parliament the then hon. Member for Lowestoft said on Third Reading:
We have wondered how best we could combat this very great abuse—this evil, as I would term it—which has resulted not only in the exploitation of the disabled, but the exploitation of the public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1958 Vol. 589, c. 1488.]
That has certainly been true. It is not just a question of protecting the disabled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) said. One of the most despicable aspects of operations in this sphere has been the general exploitation of the public on the doorstep.
The Bill will allow a period of several months for firms operating in this area to make alternative arrangements. Disabled people who may be displaced and who have proved their capabilities in carrying out a full-time job often have less difficulty in obtaining alternative employment than those who have never had the opportunity of working.
Only about 42 per cent. of employers actually take up the quota of disabled persons as described in the 1944 Act. I therefore make a special appeal to the Minister to take up this matter with industries and local authorities, many of which do not have a good record.

Mr. Dudley Smith: We have been and constantly are pursuing and pressing this point. There are many difficulties. It does not necessarily mean that a firm is not fulfilling its quota or is not complying with the spirit of the law because there are sometimes difficulties in filling particular vacancies. But we are very conscious of this matter and our officials press for this all the time. Indeed, early last year we took special measures to try to get local firms to take a far more active interest, via pressure from chambers of commerce and Rotary clubs, and it is going fairly well.

Dr. Cunningham: I conclude by asking the Minister whether he will make a special plea, particularly in areas where some disabled people may be displaced because of the introduction of this Measure. I am sure that if that were done, the hardship to the disabled at present

in employment would be absolutely minimised. The important thing, as the general opinion in the House today has shown, is that this abuse ought to be eliminated regardless.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) and those who have helped him. I congratulate the hon. Member also on his speech, although I wish that he had gone further into some of the detail of the Bill as there are a number of questions which some of us would like answered. Perhaps we shall be helped when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, as I hope he will, gives us some guidance.
This has been a very good debate, as very often happens on a Friday. There is no doubt that we are all inclined to agree with the sentiments which the House has expressed so far and most of us are only too anxious, as I was, to attend the debate and to hear what could be done to help the disabled.
But one has some fears about legislation. The House is very prolific with its legislation. On a matter of this kind, it is so often difficult to decide whether in practice it will help. The hon. Gentleman said that the original Act was rather useless in practice. No doubt when that Bill was put before the House it received sympathy and support equal to that attracted by the present Bill. I am one of those who feel very cautious about legislation being so easily churned through. We should ask ourselves to what extent in practice it is enforceable. We know of the problems of the police and the enormous amount of work they have to do. Even at this stage, I still have doubts as to what extent the Bill will be practicable if it is made law. It is not my intention to oppose it. I have heard today nothing but praise for the Bill. I have no doubt that the House will give it its approval and I shall be very pleased.
In my constituency I am concerned with animal welfare. I am the president of the local branch of the R.S.P.C.A. Often I have to explain to the members that legislation is not always the answer to what we wish to achieve. There is so much to be done in other fields. We all know that the Acts on the Statute Book concerning animal welfare are not really


effective. Immediately a Bill becomes an Act, many of us receive letters from constituents asking why the Act is not enforced or why a certain person is allowed to do this and that. The difficulty of enforcement of this sort of legislation, particularly what I call Private Members' Friday legislation, should be looked at generally. I hope to have a reassurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the chances of the Bill being effective.
I apologise for missing a few minutes of the debate, and I may be at some loss here, but I am wondering about the point made by the hon. Member for Sedge-field concerning the employment of disabled people. He said that 60 disabled people were employed in one factory and that the Bill would have an effect upon them and the factory. Can we be sure that there will not be further unemployment of disabled people as a result of it? A few minutes ago it was said that there would be opportunity for the replacement and re-employment of the people who would be put out of business. But it would be a sad thing for disabled people who were employed if they were added to the unemployment roll.

Mr. David Reed: The firm that I mentioned employs 60 people in three different locations throughout the country, so the localised problem in each case of placing disabled people who could possibly—I put it no higher than that—be displaced would not be a major local problem. Even if it were equally split between the three locations, it would be 20 in each of the three large areas. The Bill would prevent the firm in question, or any other firm, continuing to employ those people to manufacture or pack products and sell them door-to-door. The only difference would be that as the firm would not be able to claim that the profits were going to help the disabled, the product would have to sell on its own merits.

Mr. Gurden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his explanation is helpful. I am sure that we would all like to be very careful to ensure that no disabled person would be out of a job.
Mention was made of the gullibility of people when on the doorstep and how it was exploited. I am not too sure how much legislation can intervene and be effective on this matter. The hon. Gentle

man mentioned the rates of profit, the ratio of wages, shoddy goods and the like. Short of a different type of government in a country such as ours, I am not satisfied that we could ever be sure of protecting gullible people. I do not take too much notice of that point. Surely all of us are subject to sharp practice sometime in our lives, certainly on the doorstep. I am a little concerned that an unsatisfactory and undesirable ratio of profits, ratio of wages and shoddy goods argument should have been brought into this. In any society there will always be some people who must learn to protect themselves. If the Bill will help the disabled, I hope that it becomes an Act.
In my constituency we have a very active branch of an organisation for the disabled and I have often given it my support. Most of the legislation to help the disabled has been very useful. I congratulate Labour Members on the enormous amount they have done for the disabled, who have been very encouraged when they have come here to listen to debates and talk to us. I shall not delay the conclusion of the debate any further. We wait anxiously to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the Bill, particularly on enforceability and how useful the Bill can be to the disabled in practice.

12.42 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Mr. David Reed) has done a service to the House, and will bring considerable relief to many people in the country, by introducing a Bill which is clear, concise and deals with one of the most atrocious practices. Everyone will agree that those who profit from the disabled by all manner of sales techniques can look to this House for no succour whatsoever.
The Bill has some weaknesses, but not for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). He said that some people must learn to defend themselves. But Parliament and other representatives of the public have a primary duty to accept that many people cannot defend themselves, and we must see that such people are not used by unscrupulous people.
My hon. Friend, having worked hard and consulted many people in drafting the Bill, needs the support of Parliament


and eventually of the Government, I believe, in trying to eliminate some of the legislative weaknesses that appear to be in the Bill. For example, the primary object is to stop people selling goods by door-to-door salesmanship or through the post with the aid of representations that those goods have been made by disabled people or that disabled people will profit from their sale.
I suspect that those making large sums by means of such sales techniques will have all sort of people, particularly legal advisers, already telling them how best to get round the Bill. For example, what is meant by "benefit"? It does not take much ingenuity to develop sales techniques to get round that term. Is it necessary to say that the goods have been made by disabled people? Omission of those words can get round the Bill. My hon. Friend fully agrees with me about such weaknesses. His intent to stop the practice in question is firm. He agrees that in Committee there will have to be close examination of the wording so that the ingenuity of Parliament can be matched against the ingenuity and sharp practice of the salesman.

Mr. Gurden: Mr. Gurden rose—

Mr. Leadbitter: I will not give way because we must consider other hon. Members who wish to speak on later business, and the hon. Gentleman has had his say.
The country should know that many thousands of pounds are being taken from ordinary people by companies purporting to be carrying out good works. I recently had to deal with the case of a concern registered under the Charities Act, 1960, in which of over £20,000 income—small fry compared with other examples—only £96 was put to relief. The rest was spent on cats and all sorts of expenses, hidden and not hidden, but just within the fringe of the law. One of my hon. Friends had some misgivings about the Bill, but because of that kind of example I know that all hon. Members will want to see the Bill, although small, as a pioneering piece of legislation that eventually, with the Government's support, can be tightened up just a little more to do what my hon. Friend wants to see done.
We want to play the game with the disabled and not use them. They need so much help that we should fight hard against the disreputable character that misuses them. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who put the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act on the Statute Book, is of the same mind. More important, we want to see that the general public are satisfied when they give money to good causes that all the money goes to them and that large chunks of it are not used to keep people in luxury in good houses, running expensive cars and having holidays abroad in the winter.

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I warmly sympathise with the objectives of the Bill, and also commend the way in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) moved its Second Reading. If I have any reservations about it, I hope that the House will be indulgent, because I put them forward in the desire to help and not to hinder. It may be of assistance if I express my view now, and not when the Bill begins its progress through Committee.
When we are dealing with Bills that amend an existing Act, four questions should be asked and answered. First, has the principal Act failed? Second, if it has, what are its defects? Third, are the amendments needed for their own sake? Do they contribute positively to the solution of the problem? Fourth, do they remedy the defects that have appeared in the principal Act?
When we consider those questions and answers in relation to this Bill, we are reminded of the problem facing a legislature wanting to stamp out a mischief, and the limitations upon it in seeking to do so by legislation. There must be limits to which Parliament should go in so tightening up a prohibitory Act as to affect the freedom of individual citizens. We must keep that clearly in mind when considering any Bill to tighten up an Act's provisions, especially its penal provisions.
I was in sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) when he queried the necessity as a matter of principle of new law


on any subject, especially when a law already exists on that subject. Should we not therefore consider that there is already an Act to deal with this mischief? Should we not ask ourselves whether the problem is not so much the need to bring in yet another law to deal with this aspect but to consider the enforcement of the existing Act?
Hon. Members have made reference to another Act of which there are complaints of inadequate enforcement by local authorities. If this is a genuine complaint, is it right for Parliament to meet it by passing yet another Act to deal with it? Are we not over-legislating when we come to passing Bills which amend Acts which themselves deal substantially with the problem they were passed to deal with? That also applies to this problem. I accept that to some extent the principal Act has failed because certain bogus firms are on the register and that they are there because they are able to evade the Ministry's conditions for registration. The hon. Member for Sedgefield said such firms were able to take on extra disabled workers at the time of application for registration and put them off immediately afterwards. But is not the remedy to this the tightening up of the Ministry's own requirements for registration or the provision of some continuing supervision of firms on the register rather than yet another Act of Parliament?
Most hon. Members who have spoken have rightly condemned the practice of using disabled persons as a means of feathering one's own pocket. But the Act of 1958 itself sets out to condemn and stamp out that mischief. I am sorry that the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is not here at the moment. but he made the sort of speech all of which could have been, and probably was, made on the principal Act 14 years ago. I say with great deference to him and to others that it is very easy to elicit and express sympathy on an emotive subject like this. Any person suffering any sort of handicap naturally attracts the sympathy of all decent-minded people. But in this Chamber in particular so many platitudes are uttered, if I may say so—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Especially on Fridays.

Mr. Stanbrook: —especially on Fridays, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) reminds me—that we must surely be on our guard and, when dealing with a Bill which after all is only dealing with the failures of an existing Act, be certain that we are concentrating on the merits of this Bill and not on the merits of the Act. It is this confusion of thought which leads to so much misunderstanding, if not among hon. Members then certainly among the public. So much "guff" is talked about these emotive subjects in the House that—again with great deference and respect as a comparatively new Member—I suggest we should pay greater attention to the true merits of the question before us.
In this spirit, I draw attention to some of the provisions in the Bill which strike me as needing some explanation. I have no criticism of the way in which the hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill, but he said nothing about what appears to me to be a somewhat curious amendment to be effected by adding the words "article or thing" to "goods". I do not know on whose advice he chooses to insert those words in the principal Act. The word "goods" appears in it a number of times and, therefore, in this Bill. The reference to "articles or things" also occurs a number of times.
I had understood that "goods" included "articles" and "things". Why the necessity to add yet more words to yet another Act which controls the conditions under which our people live? As I understand it. Section 62 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, defines "goods" very widely as
…all chattels personal other than things in action and money…
which may be freely translated, I think, as almost everything portable. One wonders whether such an amendment is necessary to the principal Act in these terms—whether the words "article or thing" are really necessary in the context.
Another extension to the Act proposed by the Bill—this was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—is the insertion of words providing for the process of exchange to be covered. The Bill would insert the words:
…any goods or exchanging any article or thing for any other article or thing".


That appears to me to lead to a certain amount of confusion. We are dealing with the selling of goods door-to-door or by post. We are now asked to amend the Act so as to cover the exchange of goods on a door-to-door basis. The illustration given by the hon. Gentleman was a case where a firm leaves a carrier bag outside a private house with a note inviting the householder to fill it—with old clothes, for example. In return, some other goods or article will be given to the householder. If this is the mischief which the Bill aims to cure, one wonders why the words of the Bill are not framed so as to cover, for example, part exchange. It would be imagined that in most transactions of that kind money comes into it. There must be something made up with money. I wonder whether those words are well drafted.
Having queried additions in the Bill, I now query an omission. The Bill covers only goods, articles and things—goods being covered by the original Act, articles and things added by the Bill, as I think unnecessarily. Why are not services included? Surely the practice to which we are referring covers the offer of services such as window cleaning, car washing or gardening by people purporting to act on behalf of disabled persons.

Mr. David Reed: I do not wish to interrupt the beautiful job the hon. Member is making of dissecting my Bill. He has raised many points which I hope will be dealt with in Committee. Would he accept my invitation to do what he can through his own Whips and to make sure that he gets on to the Committee, if the Bill reaches that stage?

Mr. Stanbrook: I have a confession to make. I do not aspire to be a member of the Committee. If I can put these points, at least I am doing my duty when I have the opportunity. Perhaps they are not worthy of consideration and are of no substance. If we are thinking of amending the original Act perhaps some consideration ought to be given to the practice which might arise in future, if it has not arisen in the past, of offering services on the same basis as that upon which goods are offered. The real mischief is misrepresenting the motive as help for disabled persons.
The next point I turn to deals with the penal provisions of the Bill. As I understand it, it is part and parcel of the intentions of the sponsors to tighten up the principal Act not merely to cover a loophole but to make the Act a greater deterrent. This should be considered very seriously because as it stands the Act provides for offences to be dealt with as summary offences alone—a fine of up to £100 and/or imprisonment for up to three months. It deals with essentially a small offence, when the offender has no option of trial by jury. What happens here—and the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the origin of the proposal to increase the penalties is the Trade Descriptions Act—is that the offence is made a summary offence punishable by a fine alone of up to £400. There is no reference to imprisonment there. In addition it is an indictable offence with a fine and/or imprisonment for up to two years.
Do we really want to tighten up the Act quite so severely? This means that the alleged offender would not have the option of trial by jury; it would be an option open to the prosecution bringing the case on indictment. Whereas before no offender stood in greater risk of punishment beyond a fine of up to £100 or three months' imprisonment he is now open to a much greater hazard at the option of the prosecution alone.

Mr. McLaren: My hon. Friend is making a series of what might be described as Committee points. Then he says he does not want to be a member of the Standing Committee. He should know that having taken part in the Second Reading debate he stands in grave danger of being selected. Then he will have every opportunity of developing his points at further length.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am aware of the danger, and that is why I was glad to take the opportunity when the question was raised earlier of saying that I do not aspire to the honour of being a member of the Standing Committee, with great respect. If I am reluctantly obliged to serve—I see the Chairman of the Selection Committee now entering the Chamber—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is just possible that the longer the hon. Member goes on the greater the danger he will be in.

Mr. Stanbrook: I accept your reproof, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps I may go on to what I regard as a point of more general importance relative to the question of tightening up the penal provisions. As the Explanatory Memorandum says, the model for those provisions is the Trade Descriptions Act. I wonder whether it is right as a matter of principle to amend an Act by bringing up its penal provisions to the level of the major Act in that area. The Trade Descriptions Act covers a great many offences, providing fairly severe penalties. There is a time limit on presecution and there is a defence available of mistake or accident in any case of breach—points which are not present in the Bill. I wonder whether it is right that the principal Act should be revised so as to make it more serious.
At the same time it is of interest to note that under the Trading Representations Act, 1968, it is an offence to make a false statement about the origin of goods. I wonder whether the sponsors of the Bill have really considered that existing law already provides a remedy for the mischief they hope to cure.

Mr. Reed: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech he would know that I made the point that disabled people are a special case because of the existence of the 1958 Act. I mentioned a firm which is already changing its tack and claiming to represent old people. Because of the 1958 Act it was necessary to amend this with disabled people in mind because this is the major abuse. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that we ought to be careful about over-legislating. Bearing that in mind, will he accept that one of the purposes of the Bill is to reduce legislation by repealing a large part of current law?

Mr. Stanbrook: I am coming to that point. The Trade Descriptions Act is a good example of what happens when we move from one Measure to another. The provisions of the 1958 Act are for a specific purpose, and those of the 1968 Act are of general application. We must not lose sight of the fact that the 1968 Act might well have been used for the benefit of disabled persons. We do not have to rely on a Bill aimed specifically at the protection of a class. There are Acts of general application which can assist.
There are a number of other points which I could raise but, since I have been invited to assist in the Committee Stage, perhaps I might communicate them directly by letter to the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I know that they will be considered seriously by him.
One point which I should mention here is the position of the independent disabled person. From his point of view this will be a serious change in the law. Under the Bill a person carrying on business who is substantially disabled and, therefore, exempted from the provisions of the Act will be restricted in that he may sell only things which are produced by his own labour. He may not sell things which he has prepared, packed or otherwise made ready for sale. I ask the sponsors of the Bill to consider this point carefully.
Are we doing an injustice to individual disabled persons who do not themselves wholly produce the products which they are selling? It will be an offence for a disabled person to sell goods which he has not wholly produced, and that is a fairly stringent restriction upon an individual disabled man. A disabled person who buys flowers from Covent Garden early in the morning, makes them into bunches for sale and carries them from door to door will be acting illegally if the Bill is passed into law.
One effect of the Bill may be to drive out of business firms which are now employing disabled labour. Although those firms may be making use of existing legislation to gain cover and respectability where none is justified, nevertheless if they are driven out of business this will mean a certain amount of unemployment, albeit temporary, for the disabled persons they now employ. The paradoxical effect of the Bill if it becomes law is that it will reduce employment opportunities for the handicapped.
For those reasons I suggest that a little more consideration should be given to the Bill than perhaps is justified by its general motive, which is wholly laudable. We must take a fairly hard-hearted view. Is the legislation really necessary? Does it cure the mischief? Is any merit that it has balanced by the positive disadvantage of over-loading the Statute Book?

1.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The


care of the disabled and the protection of their interests are matters in which Parliament has taken considerable interest in recent years. It is, therefore, a pleasure to have an opportunity today of talking on this subject.
I begin by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on his good fortune in coming so high in the Ballot. This is something which we all envy. Some hon. Members are here for many years without ever achieving a place in the Ballot. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Sedge-field on his choice of a subject, which commands wide interest and support from both sides of the House, and for his lucidity and fair exposition of this well-considered Bill.
However, knowing as I do the deep sense of responsibility which all hon. Members share in matters affecting the disabled, I feel it incumbent upon me to explain as clearly as I can, and in such detail as is necessary, the limitations—these have been raised by many hon. Members—and also the merits of the Bill. To do so I must first talk about the principal Act which the Bill seeks to amend and the experience of my Department under successive Governments in the administration of that Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) drew attention to this.
The Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958, was an honest attempt to control the activities of traders engaged in selling goods from door to door or by post who represent those goods as being made by blind or other disabled people.
It was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in 1958 because of the concern which was then being felt by such organisations as the Royal National Institute for the Blind that by exaggerating the extent to which they employed blind or otherwise disabled people, and by charging high prices for inferior goods—the point made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) such traders were exploiting public sympathy for the blind and disabled and were harming the interests of genuine charities. The hon. Member for Sedgefield referred to it as

a racket, and that is not too strong a word. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) said that the blind had been particularly exploited.
Under the Act, traders, other than nonprofit-making organisations, selling goods by post or from door to door and representing that they employ—or that the sale of the goods otherwise benefits—disabled people are required to register with the Department of Employment. Before they can be registered, my Department has to be satisfied that the representation which they propose to make can reasonably and properly be made and that they fairly convey the the extent and nature of the employment or benefit to be provided. A trader is liable to have his registration cancelled if he is found to be making representations which do not do so. In that event he has a right of appeal to a magistrates' court.
Since the Act came into force a total of 151 applications for registration has been received and some 70 traders have been registered. Thirty applications have been rejected and the remainder have been either withdrawn or found to have been made by traders who were exempt. There are 40 current registrations covering, some 200 workers. The largest firm registered gives employment to about 50 disabled people in packing goods, but most of the registered traders are quite small, with at most only a handful of disabled employees.
Over the years my Department has received a fairly steady number of complaints about the activities of these traders. Most of these complaints are about the quality of goods in relation to prices charged, or to the sales methods adopted. These are matters which are outside the scope of the principal Act and have nothing to do with the employment of disabled people. But some of the complaints are about mis-representaton, usually to the effect that the canvasser had said that he was selling on behalf of the blind or disabled. While every complaint has been carefully and genuinely investigated by the Department of Employment, it has proved most difficult to obtain evidence about oral misrepresentation which would be accepted in a court of law. Hon. Members with any experience of these matters


will understand the difficulties, and it has been so proved in this case.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my hon. Friend referring to the practices of registered traders, and when he speaks of representations which they have made, does he mean that they were suggesting that their organisations were non-profitmaking?

Mr. Dudley Smith: There have been complaints about both. There have been complaints about those who are registered making the wrong sort of representation, and there have been allegations of shoddy goods; but there have also been representations about people who were not so registered. It is extremely difficult to get to grips with them when the bird has flown. Operators who are not registered are often fly-by-nights, and it is difficult to trace them afterwards and bring an action.
Although I think it is fair to say that the Act has enabled the Department of Employment to exercise a measure of control over written representations, I must admit that it has proved a difficult Act to administer, particularly in relation to oral representations and the nature and extent of benefits derived by disabled people from the sale of goods. We are prepared to acknowledge that the situation has been far from satisfactory. For example, if a trader employs just two or three disabled people packing, say, soap and toiletries, one cannot deny that disabled people benefit from his activities and he may, subject to appropriate conditions, qualify for registration under the Act.
I must say to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Orpington that unless a large staff is deployed to keep a close check on the activities of all the salesmen employed by the trader—and this is impracticable—it becomes difficult to prove at a later stage that in reality only a small percentage of the goods sold have been packed by disabled employees. The hon. Member for Sedgefield said that we would need a whole army of officials to police this matter.

Mr. Gurden: Could my hon. Friend say how many prosecutions there have been?

Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, I can. I was appalled when I heard how many prose

cutions had taken place since 1958: only two. This is not because of lack of vigilance by my Department, but ensuring enforcement would need a great expansion in the number of civil servants employed. The fact that there have been only two prosecutions shows the validity of bringing in an amending Bill.
An unforeseen consequence of the Act has been that traders have been able to use the fact of their registration to give the impression that they have in some way received official recopnition from my Department. It is possible, therefore, for unscrupulous people to comply. or at least to appear to comply, with the letter of the law and use their certificate of registration as a "cloak of respectability" to enable them to exploit for great personal gain the undoubted readiness of the British public to help those who are handicapped. It has even been known for somebody to flourish a piece of paper and say, "Here is a licence from the Government saying that we are permitted to do this."
Instances have come to light in which traders have employed what I can only call unpleasant canvassers who have caused anxiety to elderly and lonely householders during late evening calls. It would not be unusual for some of these unsatisfactory canvassers themselves to apply for registraticn as traders when they have discovered the lucrative nature of the business on which they have been engaged for other people. My Department has, of course, no control over the traders and their salesmen, otherwise than endeavouring to ensure that representations which they make are not untrue.
Having spoken frankly about some of the problems which have arisen in the administration of the present Act, I would not like to give the impression that all registered traders are unscrupulous scoundrels. I have every reason to think, on the advice I have had, that of the 40 traders with current registrations, well over half act more or less as agents of genuine charities or workshops providing facilities for the employment of disabled people under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. 1944, and securing for themselves a modest living in the process.
Nevertheless, I think it is right to ask these charities and workshops whether it is necessary or relevant—and this point was brought out by the hon. Member for Willesden, West—in 1972 for them to want their products hawked round from door to door. Hon. Members who have visited Remploy factories or have seen their showrooms in Bruton Street in London or the showrooms of the Industrial Advisers to the Blind on the Albert Embankment will know, as I do, that severely disabled people employed in modern progressive factories are producing high class goods which sell entirely on merit in the open market, and mostly through industrial and commercial outlets. This is a very important consideration. To most of these organisations and factories, hawking from door to door is not only unattractive; it is also irrelevant and unnecessary. I very much hope that with this new legislation those organisations will take the point.
This is not to say that such organisations do not need a steady flow of orders so that they can continue to provide employment for those disabled people who are too seriously afflicted to be able to work in ordinary industrial conditions. I would therefore like to take this opportunity of asking all hon. Members to use whatever influence they have in persuading businessmen seriously to consider placing orders with Remploy Ltd., Industrial Advisers to the Blind, or sheltered workshops of all kinds sponsored by the Government, either for finished products for sale or for services such as packaging and distribution, or by sub-contracting parts of their processes or assembly work. What may well be a convenience to a firm can often be a valuable source of employment for the seriously disabled.
Moreover, such bodies as the Royal National Institute for the Blind have also made the point that some of the traders project a very wrong image of blind people of today. Given the right sort of training and aids, blind people are increasingly opting for employment under ordinary conditions and are competently holding down jobs as university lecturers, civil servants, teachers, computer programmers, shorthand and audio typists and a wide range of industrial jobs. I am happy indeed in this debate to have the backing today from one

of our service departments of an official who is an expert on these matters and who is a registered blind person. This gives an indication of the important jobs that many blind people hold.
Voluntary effort and voluntary funds are, however, still very essential if our great national charities are to fulfil their rôles of undertaking research and pioneering work and discovering the changing needs of handicapped people in rapidly changing industrial and social environments. It is, therefore, important that the interests of these bodies should not be undermined by the small group of unscrupulous people with whom we have been dealing in this debate.
It might be argued that there is a strong case in this day and age for a total ban on the making of representations about benefits which disabled people derive from the sale of goods which they have helped to make or pack. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) has brought into account the whole question of doorstep selling and canvassing. He will probably know that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, since this Bill is concerned only with the employment of the disabled. But I agree with him that there might be a look at the whole question of representations which are made on the doorstep, if we exclude political canvassing. There must always be a certain amount of licence allowed to those engaged in politics.

Mr. Pavitt: There is no money involved in that.

Mr. Dudley Smith: However, I am reasonably satisfied that bona fide undertakings are likely to reduce rather than expand the practice of selling from door to door or on grounds of sympathy. This Bill will encourage that reduction. It is reasonable, however, that genuine non-profit making bodies should still have the right to make relevant representations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) drew attention to this point and explained to us the very proper and worthwhile procedures followed by his organisation to see that the operation is carried out properly.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Can my hon. Friend say


whether any of our great national charities engage in door-to-door selling and canvassing?

Mr. Dudley Smith: Some do. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, who explained that he was the deputy chairman of a well-known and reputable organisation which did this but that there were wide supervisory powers in his organisation on this point. I hope that as a result of the progress that we make today there will be a diminishing return as regards the amount of door-to-door canvassing.
It is against this background that I wish, on behalf of the Government, to examine the provisions of the Bill. I appreciate the way that the hon. Member for Sedgefield approached my Department at a very early stage and took my officials into his confidence. He was generous in his tribute to my officials and the help that they have been able to give. His cooperation has enabled us to approach the matter sensibly and wisely, and it is important that it should have been discussed today.
As the hon. Member explained, Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to do four things. I shall deal with each of them in turn.
First, it proposes an extension of the prohibition provided in Section 1 of the principal Act against the making of representations to cover representations made in exchanging or offering to exchange any article or thing. In that connection, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. I am not a lawyer, though I believe that my hon. Friend is. I have had preliminary advice on this matter, and it may be that the words "article or thing" are not crucial. However, that is a matter which can be considered in Committee. I do not want to delay the House today, but I am certain to be a member of the Standing Committee, and I shall be happy to consider the point regardless of whether my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington serves on the Committee.
The provision is intended to cover the activities of those traders who deposit containers on doorsteps and offer to exchange—for example, for old woolen

garments placed in these containers—articles like combs or little souvenirs which they claim to have been packed by disabled people. I am sure that many hon. Members have encountered this unsavoury practice. Certainly I have, and I have had complaints made to me from constituents. In addition, I have encountered it personally in London. I believe that this form of representation will very soon disappear as a result of this provision in the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
I expect that, like me, hon. Members may have been dismayed to discover on inquiry that because exchange and barter were outside the scope of the principal Act it was not possible for my Department to investigate the activities of these traders. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has repaired that omission from the principal Act, and he deserves our congratulations.
Secondly, and this is the heart of the matter, the Clause seeks to remove the exemption from persons registered under the Act. The effect of this will be that from the proposed operative date it will become an offence for any person currently registered under the Act, or for any person save an exempted person, to say either orally or in writing during the course of visits from house to house, or by post, that disabled people will benefit from the sale of the goods being offered for sale or exchange.
The Clause does not seek to prevent those persons offering for sale or exchange goods which happen to have been made by disabled people, but it will become an offence for them to try to sell the goods on the basis that they were made by the disabled. This will remove the "cloak of respectability" which registration under the Act appears to give.
Bona fide non-profit-making undertakings and charities will remain exempt from the provisions of the Act, and their interests have been still further protected by the extension of exemption to undertakings registered under the Charities Act, 1960. This is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, and it is of special relevance to the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West.
While welcoming this radical approach as being preferable to what I might call "tinkering" with the provisions about


registered traders, I am obliged to warn the House that, even in the amended form proposed in this Bill, the legislation will be difficult to enforce. It is not possible to prevent someone from telling a lie by making it a criminal offence to do so. Although what is proposed in the Bill will be a distinct improvement on the present position, legislation of itself is not a full answer to the problem of misrepresentation on the doorstep. It is a difficult problem to come to grips with at any time. The real solution lies in educating the public to be as discriminating when purchasing at the door as they would be in a shop, and in particular not to buy rubbish at high prices merely because the canvasser says it will help disabled people.
The Press and other publicity media can and do play a useful rôle in this process of education. On more than one occasion newspapers have served us well in exposing fraudulent traders. I suggest that all of us can help by drawing the attention of our constituents to the importance of always ensuring that they get the best possible value for money and rejecting inferior goods being offered for sale at inflated prices.
Again I return to the point that this will not harm the genuine non-profit-making bodies which provide employment under special conditions for disabled people.
It is only fair to warn the House, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham) said, that the implementation of this Clause may result in a small number of disabled people who are employed by registered traders losing their jobs. I am afraid that this is a consequence which must flow from any successful attempt to strengthen the present Act. The House will be glad to learn, however, that I have been assured by those approved undertakings which make the most use of registered traders to dispose of some of their output that they will be able to make alternative arrangements for the sale of their products.
Thus the loss of employment or benefit will be confined to that small number of disabled people who are directly employed by registered traders. I am here talking about a comparatively small number of people, probably about 100, who mostly derive but small benefit—a

few pounds a week—for packing toiletries, pens, stationery, and so on.
This contrasts sharply with the 12,850 disabled people who are provided with meaningful and reasonably remunerated work in over 200 approved factories giving full-time employment to disabled people. We must remember that, in addition to these undertakings, many statutory and voluntary bodies which will not be affected by the Bill provide therapeutic and diversionary occupation, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Willesden West, for thousands of handicapped people.
Thirdly, by extending the exemption in favour of a disabled person carrying on any business to cases where the goods are the product of his own labour, Clause 1 seeks to prevent the exploitation of disabled people who merely pack or prepare goods for sale.
It is shameful to have to admit that there are people who are so unscrupulous and callous that they would exploit disabled people for their own personal profit by using them to pack inferior goods and sell them at excessive prices. I must admit that the hon. Gentleman is right to have incorporated this Amendment into his Bill. Our experience in administering the principal Act tells us that this change needs to be made.
The fourth point on Clause 1 is that by bringing the penalties which may be imposed under the principal Act up to those which may be imposed under the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, it seeks to provide an appropriate and realistic deterrent. The Bill will now have teeth which the principal Act originally did not have.
Clause 2 provides for the necessary consequential repeal of the provisions of the principal Act relating to registration. By proposing an operative date of 1st January, 1973, the hon. Member for Sedgefield seeks to allow sufficient time to enable approved undertakings, which at present make use of registered traders as outlets for their goods, to make alternative arrangements and also to give time to my Department's officers to help those disabled people who will be affected by the Bill if it becomes law. I assure the House that we shall certainly do this. I take the point made by, I think, the hon. Member for Whitehaven that, in those areas where they become affected,


we should make special efforts to help them. We certainly will. We are well aware that a small number will be affected and it would be our wish to try to assist them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster asked particularly about those organisations operating industries for the benefit of war pensioners and disabled persons. Most of the organisations which he has in mind are exempt from registration under Section 1(2) of the 1958 Act. But a few—particularly Workshops for the Blind—make use of registered traders to dispose of some of their output. Under the provisions of the Bill, it will be necessary for these workshops to organise the house-to-house selling themselves if they wish to operate in this sphere. The workshops principally concerned have been consulted, and I understand they are content to do this. I think this answers the point raised by my hon. Friend.
I apologise for taking so much time, but it is important to get the Government's view on record.
Taking full account of all these matters and of the opinions which have been expressed today, the Government have decided to support this measure, though, as I explained to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber, it will not be possible for the Government to provide time for it if it should run into difficulties. However, having listened to the debate, I do not anticipate that that will happen, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington proves particularly fractious in Committee, in which case we may hope that he does not achieve membership of it.
The House is doing a modest but useful job today. Many interesting points have been raised which deserve wider publicity than the subject has sometimes had in the past. We are taking a small but not unimportant step forward further to restrict some practices which, though not too numerous, are almost universally condemned by people who stop to think about them.
I conclude by again congratulating the Member for Sedgefield on his choice of subject. It is a measure which commands very wide support. I am sure that if the Bill becomes law—I have no reason

to believe that it will not finally reach the Statute Book—it will help to prevent to a limited but useful extent the further exploitation of the disabled. Above all, and perhaps rather more important, it will be a positive measure to uphold the dignity of disabled people. I think that that is something which we can all support.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Speaking for the Opposition, I warmly welcome the Bill. With other hon. Members on both sides of the House I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on his imaginative sympathy, enthusiasm and diligence in bringing the Measure before the House.
My hon. Friend's speech was a most impressive introduction to the debate on his Bill. He has asked me to say that he will carefully consider, before the Committee stage, all the points which have been raised in many notable speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend has the widespread support of hon. Members here, of an alert Press and of numerous organisations working to extend the welfare and enhance the status of the millions of severely disabled people in Britain today.
As the House would have expected, Duncan Guthrie, the Director of the Central Council for the Disabled, has played a significant part in the making of this Bill. My hon. Friend has acknowledged this, and also, just as felicitously, the work of Mrs. Phyllis Forman and Keith Goldsworthy. Many organisations which have not been mentioned today very much want to see the Bill proceed as quickly as possible to the Statute Book.
My hon. Friend has made no exaggerated claims. He recognises that this is an extremely sensitive and difficult matter. There is no certain and incontestable answer to deliberate deceit, but the Bill will clearly make deceit more difficult and easier to deal with where it is discovered.
This kind of debate in the House of Commons is the means by which we give practical expression to the genuine feelings of concern for disabled people which we all hold.
The 1958 Act, as we have heard in the debate, has inadequate technical merits. This was no fault of the promoters of the principal Act. Like every speaker in this debate, they were concerned to end an utterly disgusting abuse of public sympathy for disabled people.
The Bill will help and protect bona fide charities. The Central Council for the Disabled has said:
It should be noted that this type of trading has had an adverse effect on the fundraising activities of genuine voluntary bodies, not only by introducing an element of suspicion on the part of the public, but by giving an impression that local appeals to the public are over-frequent
The Bill will also protect the consumer. As has been noticed throughout the debate, the consumer needs to be very much on guard against those who indulge in dishonest selling techniques. The Bill will also protect the legitimate trader.
It has been said during the debate that, in consequence of the enactment of the Bill, some disabled people may lose their jobs. I understand that the Minister is especially keen to anticipate the problem by doing everything possible in the localities concerned to increase employment opportunities for severely disabled people. There are now 90,214 people registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts who are unemployed. That figure is upwards of 14,000 higher than the figure a year ago and more than 36,000 higher than the figure five years ago.
I ask the Minister to take seriously our insistence that there must now be a major attack on the employment problems of disabled people. The abuse to which the Bill addresses itself mocks the plight of large numbers of disabled people actively seeking work but who cannot find jobs in current conditions. The Minister said in a recent statement:
Improvement in job opportunities for disabled people depends upon an upturn in employment generally.
I agree. The general rate of unemployment is extremely high, but let us not overlook the ugly fact that unemployment among employable disabled people is four or five times as high as among the able-bodied people.
The fact that people use the techniques described by my hon. Friends to abuse public sympathy shows how ready people are to help those who are severely disabled wherever they can. The very success of the racketeers shows how keenly the public are concerned to provide a better life for disabled people. The Minister will have no criticism from the general public if he seeks to reduce unemployment among the employable disabled. That is something positive that we should be doing, as well as criticising the abuses to which the Bill has drawn attention.
There is no party animus, indeed no party difference, about the Bill. The points raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) are mainly Committee points. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to remove what is really a disgusting abuse which manipulates the sympathy of the public for severely disabled people. It is heartless and despicable that those who enter into this kind of doorstep selling should try to make a profit by trading on the misfortunes of others.
I am very mindful that there is further important legislation to be considered by the House today. I repeat my tribute to my hon. Friend and to those, on both sides of the House, who are recognised as supporters of all the genuine organisations working to help the disabled. I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage to the Statute Book and I, for my part, will do everything possible to help it along.

1.55 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) has been congratulated from both sides of the House on his introduction of the Bill, and I assure him that I shall not at any later stage provide the impediment of which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wished him to be free, even though, of course, because of my indiscretion in speaking on Second Reading, I realise that I am in peril of being on the Standing Committee. When my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) was addressing the House I could not help reflecting that he was really the only hon. Member who could speak to the Bill in the certainty that he would not find himself


on the Standing Committee in consequence of doing so, since he is himself the Chairman of the Committee of Selection.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) rightly said that there is no party division on the Bill. I think that all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have expressed a feeling of distaste, and indeed of disgust, at the undue exploitation of personal defects, but I think that if we analyse this we perhaps arrive at some conclusions which it is relevant to mention.
There are two things that we feel. The first is a distaste for the commercial exploitation of someone else's misfortune. The other is a general dislike of what one might call exhibiting blemishes. I think that there has been some kind of legislation against the second of those, but the Bill deals primarily with the first.
The difficulty always is one of degree. It is easy to deal with an organisation, a company or an individual which tries to sell goods as having been made by disabled people when no disabled person has had anything to do with the production of the goods. That is quite easy, or at least easy legislatively, though there may be administrative problems.
At the other end of the scale there is the charitable organisation—such as those organisations which work for the blind—where one can be sure that all the material operations are carried out by disabled people and the charitable organisation concerned has no thought other than of benefiting them.
But those two classic situations never cover the whole range of possibilities. We must remember that the Government themselves—and Parliament, too—have for a long time encouraged the practice of companies to employ a proportion of disabled people. For a long time there has been a right to display on a company's notepaper a badge indicating that it employs a proportion of disabled people. I cannot, unfortunately, remember the precise statutory authority for that, though my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may know what it means. The badge could be displayed if a firm employed a certain proportion, possibly of war disabled people, though I think it was a little more generous than that.
Let us be honest about this. The use of that badge was presumably intended to do two things. The first was not only to be a moral emblazoning of the fact that the company was employing a certain number of disabled people but also, one assumes, to increase the good will which the company would have from its customers by showing that it employed a certain number of disabled people. I think one has to recognise the principle here. Unfortunately there was a degree of exploitation of that practice which became discreditable.
If I may illustrate that from something familiar, one sometimes sees in the streets a kind of three-man band. There are two musicians who are perfectly normal people and no doubt play perfectly well, but the collecting box is held by a person who has some mutilation or defect. That obviously appears to most people a misuse of that person's defect.
The 1958 Act aimed at dealing with some of these problems. One of my hon. Friends said that certain arguments may have been used in the debates on that Act, but in fact it went through the House at 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon in May, 1958, without a word of debate. So this matter was never debated at all on the principal Act although we did have a short debate on Third Reading.
That Bill was introduced by the late Victor Collins, who took a great interest in disabled people and in people suffering from various misfortunes. I did not often agree with his general political views, but on some matters of penal reform and care for the disabled I was often on the same side as Victor Collins.
On Third Reading of that Bill, great tributes were paid to the work of the present Secretary of State for Employment, who played a great part in bringing that Bill forward. It is appropriate that the House should again be concerned with a Bill dealing with this subject.
What I am a little concerned about in the present Bill—I say this in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) but also because of what I am about to say—is that these are not really Committee points. The Bill seeks to remove the category of registered trader and to restrict the right of a disabled person to carry on this kind


of trading. I was a little concerned at what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the cancellation of registration, a very broad sweep. There are at present over 40 registered traders, of which, my hon. Friend said, more than half were respectable operators carrying on a genuine business and making a modest livelihood.
I recognise that there have been many objections about non-registered traders' activities. My hon. Friend told us that there had been some difficulties. But the majority of the registered traders are honest people making a modest livelihood. If the Bill goes through, as I hope it will, it will put those people out of their honest and modest business. It is not good enough to pass that by without more than a mention. It is a very strong action for the legislature to take to put honest people out of business because of the administrative difficulty of implementing the 1958 Act.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, because I know that I shall incur the displeasure of hon. Members who are waiting for the next Bill, but I cannot let his comments go by without making the position absolutely clear. This is not putting people out of business; it is preventing them from doing one aspect of business. They are entitled to go on making goods and selling them but not to represent them on the doorstep as being sold on behalf of the disabled.

Mr. Bell: I appreciate that, but my hon. Friend was explicit in saying that one of the main functions of their business was the marketing of goods which had often been produced by some of these bodies. One must recognise that going around the doorsteps is the nature of their business.
My next point also requires a slight exercise of candour on our part. My hon. Friend said that one remedy was for the housewife to exercise, in relation to goods offered as being made by disabled people, the same discrimination as she showed over other goods—in other words, to consider them on the purely commercial basis of value for money.
The difficulty is that this is not a matter of general applicability. Of course.

if one goes to the blind showrooms to buy a basket, one can consider the article offered and the price charged quite fairly because one knows that it is very good value. But even there the housewife gives a little bonus to the fact that they are made by blind people.
Also once one gets away from a few well-known products, where the disabled happen not to be at a particular disadvantage, one has to recognise that most of the products of disabled people's labour, especially of severely disabled people, are not of great economic value. They are sometimes little ornamental things and they are largely sold to the public because the public are animated by a charitable instinct. They pay an unrealistic price.
No business can carry on employing almost entirely disabled or blind people and pay them a proper industrial wage and operate on a profit. Their labour is not worth a full industrial wage except in special cases. Therefore, an element of charity must enter in. It can come in in two ways—by a charitable organisation subsidising the work of the disabled people or by the customer paying a higher than commercial price.
It may be right to abolish the grey area, as the Bill intends, because of what the Under-Secretary said about the great administrative difficulties of operating the 1958 Act, but certain conclusions follow. First, we must do more than we are doing about the sheltered work-shows and the training of the severely disabled. A case arose in my constituency a little whole ago, of which my hon. Friend probably knows the details, in which one saw the severe limitations of sheltered employment in the Government's Remploy factories.
There just is not sufficient scope for the severely disabled person to earn a living in sheltered conditions in which he is subsidised by the employer—the State or the charitable organisation. If enterprises which employ disabled people and get subsidy from the public in a charitable impulse are to be struck out by law, one must have in mind the employment consequences for the disabled and seek to do something about it.
I come to the limitation on the right of the disabled to sell the products of their labour, and I have some anxiety


about this. Until now it has been sufficient if a disabled person sold goods which he had
produced, prepared, packed or otherwise made ready for sale by his own labour".
It is now proposed to change that so that he must, in effect, produce the article himself, because all those words will be struck out and in their place will be put the words "produced by him".
I am not necessarily saying that this should not be done but simply that the consequences of so doing must be carefully examined. It means, once again, that all the grey area is abolished. There will be an absolutely black and white rule; either the disabled person produces everything himself or he may not sell it himself, either by post or by going from door to door, and this needs justifying.
It is easy to say that there are administrative difficulties with the present rule. The Minister referred to the practical difficulties on the registration side. But there is the other side of the Bill, by which we may be cutting down the opportunities that disabled persons have to sell their goods.
We should not, because of administrative difficulties, make a change of this kind, even on a Friday afternoon, unless difficulty has been encountered. One can be swept along on a general tide of sympathy with the purposes of legislation and perhaps do things which are not completely sensible. Has any difficulty been encountered by a disabled person in selling by post or from door to door the articles lie has made himself or has got someone to help him make?
One must always balance the two interests of how to restrict the individual by legislation and how far one should seek to provide for the greatest number by legislation. Here the balance is plainly to say, "It is rather difficult to operate the 1958 Act, so we will make this total prohibition."
Sections 2 and 3 of the principal Act will be wiped out although they are full of safeguards. I wonder what difficulty has arisen over Section 2 which, in relation to registration, says:
the extent and nature of the employment for substantially disabled persons … must be … such as to justify the … representations

In other words, it is not good enough simply to employ one or two blind people and say, "This item is made by blind people." To achieve registration one must show that there is substantial employment. One cannot make any old claim, as it were, under that provision because the Minister must be satisfied about
the extent and nature of the employment … and … benefit to such persons".
The 1958 Act also contains requirements relating to advertisements by applicants and the Minister can impose under Section 2(4)
requirements on persons registered under this Act for securing
what is necessary for registration.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend does not want to get me into trouble, and I rise to answer his challenge. There is a world of difference between what is required under the 1958 Act and the practice on the doorstep, which is what this Measure is all about. The Bill is concerned with an abuse that has gone on on the doorstep, sometimes by fraudulent people making representations, not always on behalf of disabled people.

Mr. Bell: I appreciate that, and my hon. Friend made it clear in his remarks. I am seeking to make it clear that the 1958 Act contains all the necessary safeguards which any scheme of registration could have. The only thing that can be said against it is that the administration of those safeguards is difficult and to be really effective would require a large staff, as my hon. Friend pointed out.
Having by the 1958 Act first encroached on freedom in this matter, it seems rather odd now to say, "This encroachment is proving difficult to administer. We must strike it out and make it clear, as the Bill does, that nobody except a registered charity may sell goods as having been made by disabled people."
The virtue of the cause is slightly blinding us to the drastic nature of the action that we are taking and there is a danger, particularly with a cause which is designed to prevent the exploitation of a physical defect, of thinking that anything one does in implementation of it is legislatively justifiable.
That is all I have to say on this subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I hope that no hon. Member feels that a subject of this kind should not be thoroughly examined, as the Minister agreed in his brief, though lengthy, examination of the Bill. [Interruption.] I meant that as a compliment to my hon. Friend. He was being comprehensive in his remarks and was bound to take a little time over them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."]
It is clear that some hon. Members have in mind the next business that will come before the House, but that must not be made an excuse for not thoroughly examining the business in hand. A great deal of nonsense goes through Parliament on Friday [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and perhaps the next Order of the Day is an egregious example of that, but we shall come to that in due course.
The Bill under consideration, rather than the next one, is one which in its general intent deserves the support of the House and will, no doubt, enjoy that support. However, it contains many blemishes and defects which need careful examination in Committee. Whether one will be able to support it on Third Reading will depend on how it emerges from that scrutiny.
I join in commending the Bill. I hope that it will have a relatively speedy passage through the House. I will not obstruct it. There remains ample time for the Measure to secure an unopposed Second Reading and I assure the hon. Member for Sedgefield that his Bill will have my careful attention hereafter.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.20 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I want the women of the country to understand what is the view of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on this Bill. A week or two ago I appeared on a television programme about my Bill with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He made noises which were against the Bill but which were diluted—until he got out of the studio. Then, in the presence of the interviewer and myself, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Of course women are inferior. They are second-class citizens and ought to be treated as such."

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: The interviewer said, "Why the bloody hell didn't you say that on the programme?".

Mrs. Renée Short: He did not have the guts.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that and I challenge him to come back with me to that studio, with the same interviewer, and deny that he used those words. The reason why he has made his filibustering speech of 20 minutes—not on this Bill—is that he knows that the women's organisations in his constituency, and every one of the women's organisations in the country, want this Bill. They are all going to understand the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The Prime Minister wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) saying that this was not a matter for legislation. I wrote a letter to the Leader of the House—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: —asking him to give me the Government s reaction to the Bill.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I have not received a reply, although I saw the Leader of the House—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Hamilton: I saw the Leader of the House a few days ago and he undertook to look into the matter.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallallieu): Order. The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) must know perfectly well that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way to him. Will the hon. and learned Member kindly resume his seat?

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Is it not the well-known custom of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when a reference of that character has been made to an hon. Member, it is usual to give way to him?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman will see me afterwards, and he can come along to Thames Television with me and see that interviewer. We can have it out in public, where there will be a bigger public than we have in the House at present.
The Bill is really the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). She initiated it. I take no credit for it. The bulk of the work and the hard slog has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. He has been responsible for the magnificent lobbying and the magnificent response of the women's organisations to the Bill. It is because the women of the country are convinced that the only way they can get their grievances remedied is by organising that they have had this lobby not only today but over the last few months. It is intolerable, on social, economic and all kinds of other grounds, that women should be discriminated against, not only in employment but in many other spheres not touched upon by the Bill.
I pay tribute to the great help and encouragement given to us by outside organisations and individuals, and not least to the Press, radio and television for the generally responsible way in which they have ventilated the problem. This

problem could have been treated with flippancy. On one or two occasions it was treated so. I saw one headline which read, "Bill for the birds". With that kind of ridicule I feared for the legislation. But there is no doubt that the women's organisations did not treat it flippantly. They treated it very seriously because very serious problems are involved. I know of no reputable women's organisation in the United Kingdom which has come out against the principles enshrined in the Bill.
I shall mention a very few of those organisations, not in order of importance or size but at random. The Conservative Political Centre's pamphlet "Fair Shares for the Fair Sex" included 34 recommendations, many relating to matrimonial and taxation problems. But in Chapter 7 it stated:
We put forward tentatively for consideration the suggestion that it might well be desirable for some public authority to keep other instances"—
that is, of discrimination—
under review and to make, from time to time, any proposals that seemed to be necessary … to prevent discrimination against women.
That was the gist of the recommendations of the Conservative Political Centre's pamphlet.
The second important organisation is the National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, representing three million working women. This problem concerns not only professional women. It reaches right down the line to factory level. Already business organisations are working out means by which they will get round the equal pay proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she introduced her Bill. That Bill cannot be effective unless women have equal rights and opportunities for employment, education, training and promotion, because unless women get equal rights to move to the top, employers can say that they are not qualified to do the job, on physical, mental or any other grounds.
The National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations has launched a campaign to promote greater equality of opportunity for women and girls in relation to education, training, employment and promotion. It has written letters to the Prime Minister and to the various Ministers concerned with this problem. I need not mention all the


other women's organisations which support that committee, but the Women's Institutes organisation, which reckons to be a non-party body but is generally regarded by my hon. Friends as a right wing organisation in political terms, has for the first time in its existence come out very firmly in favour of the principles enshrined in the Bill. In addition, I have had a large petition from the right hon Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and another one from the Norfolk Women's Liberation Group.
On the subject of "women's lib", I do not believe that the throwing away of women's apparel, either below or above the belt, makes any contribution to their cause, one way or the other. But, having met some of the women concerned in the last week or two, I have been impressed by their intelligence, courage, determination and courtesy. I may have been exceptional in my good fortune in this matter. Some of them do no good to their cause. Nevertheless, all those whom I have met recently confirm my view that they are seeking what the Bill seeks.
The Conservative Party's election manifesto said:
Many barriers still exist which prevent women from participating to the full in the entire life of the country. Women are treated by the law, in some respects, as having inferior rights to men, we will amend the law to remove this discrimination.
I mention one or two cases of discrimination. There was a little article in The Guardian on 13th December which indicated that the Association of University Teachers would inquire into discrimination in universities. The article pointed out that there were 3,200 male professors and 44 women. The association was going to inquire as to why there was that apparent, certainly prima facie, case of discrimination in that field.
I give some figures for Scotland, because the Bill refers also to Scotland. Of the total number of consultants in all Scottish hospitals, 1,559, 97 are women. Let us say 100 out of 1,600. In the universities it is even worse. In the Scottish universities there are 471 professors, of whom only three are women. Glasgow University has 119 male professors. It is like a ruddy monastery. Similar figures can be found in all the professional organisations.
In answer to a Question she asked on 22nd February last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green received a list the length of her arm of the number of jobs in the Civil Service from which women were excluded, exclusions that I would not understand. For example, custodians of the Houses of Parliament are not allowed to be women. I remember when women were excluded from working in our Library. Now they are one of the most delightful embellishments of the place. There is not a better combination of beauty and brains than in the House of Commons Library. There are many jobs from which the Civil Service excludes women, but come a war women will drive everything except tanks in the front line. The position is absurd.
There is a similar story at the B.B.C. Of 25,000 full-time employees, 16,000 are men and 9,000 women. We see from pages 196 onwards of the B.B.C. Handbook for 1972 that among the 32 top people in radio there is one woman, and she is the head of the gramophone department. Of 70 top posts in television, four are held by women. One is the head of the children's programmes, one the head of further education, one the head of make-up—they could hardly have a man as head of make-up, not even in the B.B.C.—and the other is the Assistant Controller of Television Developments. In news and current affairs, not one of the nine people mentioned is a woman. Imagine the B.B.C. news department putting on a programme on birth control with just a man responsible for it. I reckon that women are as much interested in birth control as men. Why should not the B.B.C. have a creche or a nursery and have a career structure for women as well as for men? I was told that there is a married woman graduate at the B.B.C. in her twenties still working as a secretary, at a salary of £1,200- £1,300 a year.
I turn to the National Health Service. I have here an advertisement for a head cook at Castleberg Hospital, Settle, Yorkshire. The post may be filled by a male or a female, but the wages for the female are £18·36 and for the male £21·04. I presume that that will be dealt with by the Equal Pay Act, but the advertisement itself would be an offence under the Bill.
I next quote the example of the Mailing Rural District Council, Maidstone, Kent.


A Miss Wilcockson applied for the job of deputy clerk in 1968. She has sent me the reply, which says:
… it was the unanimous view of my members that applications from ladies could not be considered for inclusion in the list of candidates to be invited for interview later this month.
I do not want to be party political. I do not know what the party composition of that council is, though I can guess.
To show my lack of partisanship in the matter I next quote the Swansea Education Committee. I shall be very surprised if that is not Labour-controlled. If it is not, they want their heads examined in Swansea. The committee has a comprehensive school for 1,550 girls. The teaching staff consists of 67 female and 14 male teachers, but 10 of the heads of department are women and eight are men, so one out of every two of the male staff is a head of department compared with only one woman out of every seven—and that in an all girls' school. Worse than that, between 1951 and 1964 the head was a headmistress, which is not surprising in a girls' school, but from 1965 to 1971 the school had a headmaster. He died last September—perhaps killed by his pupils. The education committee advertised for a man or a woman last year. The advertisement was subsequently withdrawn and the post was re-advertised on 11th January, and in the South Wales Evening Post of that date it was indicated that a headmaster was required for this girls' school, Mynyddbach Comprehensive School. I do not know what it means. I believe that it is Little Hill, or something like that.
I turn to the churches. Deaconess Una M. Kroll, of Sutton, Surrey began some correspondence in the Daily Telegraph when on 18th January she wrote about sex discrimination in the Church of England. Another correspondent answered her on 21st January, quoting the Bible and saying that. Mrs. Kroll should first consult the Bible, which
is 'profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for connection, for instruction in righteousness' and she will read God's instruction through Paul, ' Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.' 
If Paul were not enough, then Timothy will do, because the writer adds:

Also Timothy is instructed of Paul on the setting up of a first-century church. 'Let the women leave in silence. With all subjection … nor to using authority over the man but to be in silence.' 
So Timothy and Paul tell women to shut their months. It is Timothy and Paul who say that they shall not have equal pay, that they shall not have equal rights in education, promotion and educational opportunities.
I do not give a damn what Timothy and Paul or anyone else says. This House will say, and has the right to say, that there shall be no discrimination. The Anti-Discrimination Board will exercise its discretion. If a woman like Mrs. Kroll writes to say that she has been discriminated against by the Church of England, the board will take the matter up with the Church. I understand that the Church is to abolish discrimination within it by 1973. If churches have a conscientious objection, the board will exercise its discretion—I hope with more sense than the Race Relations Board has shown on occasions.
The Bill does not deal exclusively with women. There is also discrimination against men. I have received a letter from a Mrs. Whitehead, of Eastbourne, about sex discrimination against men. She says that her husband, a State-registered physiotherapist, could not obtain a job as a superintendent physiotherapist because it was the practice and policy of certain hospital boards that only women should hold those posts.
My next example of discrimination against women is that of a Miss Kane, of Lincolnshire, who applied for a job as a concessions lawyer with the Burmah Oil Company. She is a 29-year-old, fully qualified solicitor, with 10 years' experience of travelling around the world, from Bolivia to Egypt and Greece. When she applied, a Burmah Oil man told her orally "We want someone who can travel around the world and meet the natives, and we do not think a woman is up to this kind of job." She replied, "I have had 10 years of travelling around the world, for some of that time in the employment of oil companies." I have here the final letter sent to Miss Kane, dated 23rd November, 1971 and signed by M. Sims,
P.P. Mr. D. C. Page, for Burmah Oil Trading Ltd.


It says:
After lengthy discussion with our Exploration Department, we have to advise you that it is still our policy not to recruit a woman to fill this vacancy.''
There is the further example of discrimination in Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Three of the best—King's, Clare and Churchill—have already abolished discrimination on grounds of sex, but the great majority of the men's colleges and even the women's colleges I am told by a correspondent,
would fight to their last bottle of wine before giving up their right to discriminate.
So one could go on. Every one of us has had letters of this kind quoting cases of discrimination of one kind or another.
The Bill is modelled to some extent on the Race Relations Act. It relates to discrimination on grounds of sex in employment only. This is because a private Member introducing such a Bill is in a great difficulty. He has to limit his horizons. He cannot be too ambitious if he is to get his Bill through. Basically, the Bill seeks to create machinery to secure equal rights for all persons in employment, training and promotion, irrespective of their gender. Without this kind of equality, the Equal Pay Act, 1970, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn would be virtually a dead letter and meaningless.
Clause 2 is almost identical in wording with the similar provision of the Race Relations Act. Clause 3 would make it illegal to publish the kind of advertisement I have mentioned which would tend or seek to discriminate on grounds of sex. Clause 4 would make it illegal to discriminate in training or education.
The National Council of Working Women informs me that a Department of Education and Science circular is still in existence which deliberately discriminates in the provision of facilities in schools against girls in science and related subjects. The circular is still enforeable, I understand, and I ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to look at it.
Clause 5 would make it illegal to discriminate in professional bodies, trade unions, and so on, against people on grounds of sex. Certain hon. Ladies opposite have knowledge and evidence to

support the justification for that. Clause 6 deals with the administration of the Bill. It would set up an "Anti-Discrimination Board". The Schedule gives details as to the status, staff, payment, and so on, of the board.
The board's duty would be to receive complaints from individuals and to make inquiries. I say at once that although there is provision for the board to have recourse to the courts, this would be a last resort. The main purpose of the Bill is educational and to achieve results by persuasion. Where persuasion of the employer can achieve the desired result, one does not want to go to court. However, one must reserve the right for the individual or the board on behalf of the individual to go to court and if necessary sue for damages.

Mr. Douglas Jay: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I would rather not give way. I know the point which my right hon. Friend has in mind. He would ask me whether this provision would infringe on existing legislation about night work and so on. My information is that it would not. Where there is existing legislation precluding women from night work, for example—or, to take an extreme example, from work in coal mines—it would not be affected by the Bill. That is my understanding of the situation.
When one examines the list of sponsors of the Bill, I think it fair to say that rarely has any Bill, either Government or Private Member's, had such a galaxy of talent, such a combination of brain, brawn, beauty and bloody-mindedness to support it. Let the Minister be warned, if not impressed, by the quality of beauty, brain and political experience of the sponsors. Let him take warning from the Gallery. Let him take warning from the women's organisations outside. Let him at least tell the House that the Government accept the principle of the Bill in accordance with their election manifesto. I accept that it may need radical alteration in Committee. I am quite flexible about that, as I am bound to be as a private Member hoping to get his Bill through. In that spirit, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

2.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I understand that it would be the general wish of the House that I should speak next and put the Government's point of view. I apologise to hon. Members for the time I might be taking up. I shall try to respond to the Bill and to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) in the spirit in which he moved the Second Reading. I think it right that the House should be debating this subject and I think that it is grateful for him for giving it the opportunity to do so.
The Government have general sympathy with the broad objectives of the Bill. But whether or not legislation, or this Bill in particular, is the right way to do it is something that I shall discuss later in my speech. We believe that the remaining areas in which there is discrimination against women should be removed and as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to point out we made our position clear in our election manifesto. I need not quote again the passage he read out.
We in the Conservative Party have had the benefit of the report to which the hon. Member referred. "Fair Shares for the Fair Sex", which was a Conservative Political Centre document and not an official document, published in 1969. I think the House would agree that we have already implemented a large number of the recommendations in that document for the removal of discrimination against women in law.
As the hon. Gentleman properly pointed out, the Bill deals with the particular subject of discrimination in employment. Before reaching a decision, the House will wish to consider two things: first, the areas and extent of discrimination existing in employment at the present time and, secondly, if the problem exists, whether the Bill, or any legislation at all, is the best way to deal with this question. The House will agree that discrimination does not arise in employment in the vast majority of cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is good reason for this. Men and women are not competing for the same jobs in a vast sector of industry.

Mr. John Rankin: I am sorry to interrupt, but for one reason or another, over which I have no control, I will have no way of contradicting anything the Minister may say except by interruption. I want to make clear that I disagree completely with him in his statement that there is no discrimination against women throughout almost every industry anyone may care to mention. If the Minister wishes, I can recite all the industries in which there is discrimination.

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have his opportunity of speaking later. In a large section of industry men and women are not directly competing for jobs. Take for instance heavy engineering, transport and a whole variety of industries such as coal mining. There are large areas in which there is no direct competition at all.

Mrs. Renée Short: Rubbish.

Mr. Sharples: The vast majority of women are working in jobs which are an extension of their traditional domestic rôle.

Mrs. Short: That is the trouble. Another Neanderthaler.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: It seems as if the Minister does not understand the point of the Bill. Its aim is that women should be able to compete with men for any job for which they wish to apply and to train for any job. The hon. Gentleman is simply stating the position of discrimination which exists now. Women are not competing against men for jobs because they know that in so many cases they will not be selected.

Mr. Sharples: In a large section of industry most of the jobs are done by men because the jobs are of a certain kind and are incapable of being done by women.

Mrs. Short: Tell us which jobs.

Mr. Sharples: Coal mining.

Mrs. Short: What else?

Mr. Sharples: Heavy engineering.

Mrs. Short: What else?

Mr. Sharples: A large proportion of the building industry—a whole area. The


vast majority of women are in jobs which are an extension of their traditional domestic rôle.

Mrs. Short: Down with the traditional rôle!

Mr. Sharples: These are such jobs as involve food, clothing, nursing, a large proportion in shops and in personnel and social services.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: That is because of the discrimination.

Mr. Sharples: A vast majority of women want jobs in these areas, and not because of discrimination. A survey was published in 1968 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showing that the great majority of women were satisfied with the job they were doing. It showed that married women—and over 50 per cent. of the women in employment are married—found that promotion and opportunities for using skills and training were comparatively unimportant in considerig the attractions of a job. I want to make it clear that there are women to whom this does not apply, particularly the highly educated. As the standard of education of women has risen so the competition between men and women for the kind of job for which the more highly educated woman goes has increased.
Sex is not by any means the only ground on which there is discrimination. I was interested to see in The Times yesterday a letter by Mrs. Rosamond Newman who said:
I have recently obtained a Diploma in Sociology but because of age I cannot obtain the necessary training for professional qualification, and I have worked competently as a secretary at a high level. Now, however, because my children are grown up and I wish to start a career at 43 like thousands of other women, I am simply unable to do so because of age prejudice.
A Bill is currently going through Parliament to reduce the present discrimination against women in training and employment which will probably be as ineffective as the Race Relations Act. It should be remembered, however, that the trend for age discrimination is the same for men.
As a Member of Parliament I find that I have far more letters from people feeling that they have been discriminated against in employment on grounds of age than I have from those who feel they are discriminated against on grounds

of sex. I wonder whether legislation is the answer. Women certainly should be given equal opportunities for promotion. But this is more a matter of changing attitudes than legislation.
This at least was the view of the Women's Advisory Committee of the Trades Union Congress, and I have no reason to think that it has changed its mind since the subject was last considered. We must recognise that many jobs previously reserved to men can now be done by women. The House will know of the increasing range of opportunities which are open to women and girls. This is as much a matter of a change of attitude—and it is happening all the time—as anything else. It is a change of attitude not only on the part of employers but a change which is taking place among girls and their parents. That is just as important. The crucial decisions as to the kind of career and the level of responsibility to aim for are taken before a girl leaves school. Teachers and careers officers can and do play a big part.
The National Youth Employment Council in its report covering 1968–70 said:
Parents are being encouraged to think more widely. Careers programmes in schools are increasingly directed to include jobs which hitherto were thought to be inappropriate to girls. Discussions on vocational choice are being introduced before educational options are exercised. Employers have been approached and in some cases have shown a willingness to consider girls.
The problem is always that so many women have to interrupt their careers while their family is growing. They often need help from employers in regaining their confidence and skill, and we believe there is an onus upon the employer to assist women in this way.
To come back to the main theme of the debate, there are areas in which men and women compete for jobs but those areas, proportionately, are not very large. There are jobs which by their very nature are always done by men. There are jobs which are far better done by women and which will always be done by women. There are jobs in which there is in law special protection for women. Statutory restrictions on hours of work in factories would have to be removed if Clause 2 of the Bill were to be implemented.

Mr. William Molloy: Why not?

Mr. Sharples: I wonder whether the removal of legislation which has been introduced by the House over the years for the protection of women in work, and particularly for the protection of the health of women in work, would have general support. I am quite certain that it would not have support from the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Molloy: That does not affect it.

Mr. Sharples: It certainly does affect it.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Quite apart from the merits of the case, as a matter of fact I should like to be clear, before taking a decision on the Bill, whether as it stands it involves the repeal of some of the legislation which the Minister has mentioned.

Mr. Sharples: My advice is that it would and that, to comply with Clause 2 of the Bill, it would be necessary to remove the restrictions in law upon the employment of women and the conditions under which women are allowed to work. That is the advice which I have received and I believe it to be right.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Surely it would be possible to draft a piece of legislation like this in such a way as to retain any statutory protection which may be considered necessary. We were perfectly able to do that in the context of the Equal Pay Act and the special treatment which women receive in childbearing and in other situations affecting their rôle as mothers.

Mr. Sharples: I think possibly it would be. It would be necessary to amend the legislation on those matters. I am replying to the hon. Member who asked me what the position was.
There are jobs which one sex or the other is better qualified to carry out. We can all think of those. In some ways the Bill seems to assume that men and women are the same in every respect, which is a biological fallacy. On that assumption the Bill adopts the solution of the race relations legislation. There is no biological difference between white and coloured persons, but that consideration does not apply to this Bill. The

problems are not the same and it is no use pretending that they are. The proposals in Clause 2 are in conflict with existing legislation, and we must be clear whether it is the wish of the House that that legislation should be repealed.
I also exercise strong reservations about the main part of the Bill, the appeals machinery which is set up in Clause 6 The machinery proposed would be cumberous, expensive and probably ineffective. It would be difficult in law to know whether a decision between men and women was made on the basis of discrimination or on other grounds.
In conclusion, we support the objective of the removal of discrimination against women in every field. We want women to share equally with men in the opportunities which they have in those areas which are open to both, but we do not believe that legislation, particularly the Bill now before the House, is the right way of bringing this about.

3.5 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Minister of State has seriously misjudged the mood on both sides of the House and has put up no kind of case at all for resisting this Bill. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who might be described as the Sir Galahad of parliamentary debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) have come very much closer to judging the mood of the House and the country.
The Minister in his speech sounded to me all too reminiscently like the Rhodesian Government on the subject of their African majority: "They like being subsistence peasants, so they had better go on being in that position." That basically was his argument.
When he counsels patience, I say on behalf of my sex that we have waited long enough. Many of us feel that the time has now come for action at last to be taken. It is not true that the position is getting better. In some ways it is getting worse.
I hope I may be allowed to indicate some of the ways in which it is getting worse. We are at the moment moving rapidly towards co-education but, as my


hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West indicated, all too many local education authorities will not even consider a woman as the head of a co-educational school. That means immediately closing a large range of opportunities for able women. In the area of block and day release the figures are appalling, and the Minister should look them up. They indicate that about 7 per cent. of girls have any opportunity for apprenticeship in a period when it is getting more and more difficult for unskilled persons to be sure of employment life-long.
In expansion of higher education all the indications are that, because of the slowing down of the colleges of education, there will be fewer opportunities proportionately for girls in higher education in ten years' time, and this is borne out by Department of Education and Science projections. In the fields of medical consultancy, senior and middle management, industrial consultancy, company directorships, and, I regret to say, senior trade union officials, hardly any women's names appear at all. On the boards of nationalised industries, area boards of nationalised industries, in the whole field within the Government's patronage, only a pathetic handful of women have been appointed even to bodies concerned with the protection of the consumer.
I must tell the Minister that we have waited long enough, and there is no reason to wait longer. He accepts the gnat of principle but strains at the camel of making it work. If he does not like my hon. Friend's suggestion for making it work, I am sure we would be prepared to listen to him suggest a better way that it could work. But what we will not do is to accept the principle, and then decide to do nothing about it to make it work—because all of us who have been in the House for some time have heard that all too often.
It is surely no more difficult to judge discrimination on the grounds of sex than discrimination on the grounds of race. Hon Gentlemen opposite—I do not use that as a collective phrase on this occasion—ought to consider again their objections to the Race Relations Act and wonder whether they are wise in acting like Canutes against the rising tide of demand for equality in this country.
I do not wish to speak for any more than another minute, because I know that many of my colleagues want to take part in this debate. I want only to say that the Opposition give their full support to this Measure. We believe that this is proper and wise and would say to the Conservative Party that the commitment it made in its manifesto could not have been more clearly made. Many women voted for it believing that it would carry out that pledge. It now has the chance to do so, and we await with interest and concern to see if it does. Hon. Members opposite have now been given a full opportunity.

3.9 p.m.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on his fortune in the Ballot and on bringing this Bill before the House. I cannot congratulate him on having trumpeted in that speech on a very vicious attack on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I am not in a position to judge the merits of his attack, but it is to me quite out of keeping with the tradition of this House that, having gained the publicity of this forum for the attack, he refused to give way and allow my hon. and learned Friend to reply.
I have very, very serious reservations about the tactics of the hon. Member for Fife, West and about the practicality of his Bill. I have no doubt that I shall be wildly misrepresented in any reports of the comments that I intend to make, but I do not believe that the Bill has been sufficiently thought out in its implications. I do not think that there has been enough discussion with, not least, the trade unions. The hon. Member for Fife, West skated over this issue in half a sentence. Many unions are entrenched in their opposition to female labour. When I say that, I am not discussing the coal mines, for example. But there are large parts of the textile industry where the unions insist on men only. I believe that there must be more field work and agreement before a Bill of this kind can be practically implemented and rapidly carried forward, which it will have to be if it becomes law.
I speak with some experience, though it is not likely to be that of the hon.


Member for Fife, West. I have experienced prejudice in my job and in my politics because of my sex. I do not come here with a lack of sympathy. I have considerable knowledge of the views of members of the many women's organisations. I have spoken to them, and I support them on many of these issues. I had the pleasure of moving the resolution endorsing "Fair Shares for the Fair Sex" which was accepted by the Conservative Women's annual conference.
I believe that in many ways pressure for this Bill has been given added impetus by a perfectly justifiable annoyance on the part of women that the Race Relations Act makes it possible for a coloured woman to protest if she is discriminated against because of her colour. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite can sneer as much as they like. There are many resolutions on record which have been adopted by the women's organisations. These are facts. It has been a point of protest that, whereas under the Race Relations Act a coloured woman can protest that she has been discriminated against unfairly because of her colour, a white woman has no machinery for protesting.
The hon. Member for Fife, West may say that that is an anomaly that he is trying to remove and that his Bill will prevent it in the future. However, I believe that we should look more closely at the employment scene—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Is it really the right hon. Lady's understanding of our race relations legislation that a white woman refused employment by a black employer on this ground cannot take action under the Race Relations Act?

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I did not say that. I am sure that other hon. Members opposite realise that I made a valid point.

Mr. Russell Kerr: A racist point.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I have not made a racist point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should listen instead of letting their protests override their common sense. They know perfectly well that what I say is true, no doubt having, like

me, received letters from many women's organisations saying exactly what I have said.

Mr. Rose: It so happens that I served on both of the Standing Committees which considered our race relations legislation. Is not the right hon. Lady aware that many hon. Members proposed that the legislation should be extended from race to cover religion and sex?

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman accepts my point.
As I say, I believe that we should look more closely at employment. In many instances the young female school leaver fares better in the wage structure than the male school leaver. However, there is prejudice later against women, and I deplore it. The nub of women's protests about prejudice in employment concerns the promotion ladder.
The cases quoted by previous speakers were mainly directed to the professions, education, medicine and the universities. The problem which we have to tackle mainly is that of the promotion ladder and women not being given the same fair opportunity, their qualifications being equal, of going up that ladder.
The Bill is ill-timed, it is cast on unprepared ground, and I believe that it will obscure in its impact the battle of the promotion ladder which we have to fight.
The success of politics is in achieving the practically possible rather than losing out striving for the idealistically desirable. I believe that it is better to prune wisely and harvest the fruit than to go at a tree with an axe.
At the moment we have 1 million unemployed. Most of these are men, and most of these men are breadwinners. I should like to know from the sponsors of the Bill what inquiries they have made to and what reactions they have had from the male oriented trade unions from which, I believe, there would be considerable opposition where it is least necessary because the number of women who would want to go into that type of job would be few. I believe that we should launch our attack on the promotion sphere, not on an issue as wide and wholly overriding as this Bill.
At this time of wide unemployment, there has been a considerable backlash of womenfolk writing to their M.P.s


stressing that breadwinning males should be employed instead of females.
We have an example in this House. For over 50 years we have had the right to stand for Parliament, to be elected, and to sit as Members in this House of Commons on terms of equality with our male colleagues. But only 81 women were included among 1,800 candidates of all parties at the last election. I regret that it is not only men who keep women out; it is quite often our own sex as well. The law has given us the right over 50 years, but we have not noticeably or very dramatically increased our representation. Are we to say that, as a result of the Bill, if a woman is turned down by a selection committee she can then protest that she is turned down on grounds of sex?
Can we honestly say that, with all its panoply of commissions and committees, the Race Relations Act has achieved anything like what this House hoped? We still have discrimination. Is it not a matter where by steady education and working from profession to profession or industry to industry we can achieve more than a blanket piece of overriding legislation like this which sounds good, makes people feel good, but which in the end will not achieve what hon. Members sincerely hoped for it.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Like the Industrial Relations Act?

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: At least hon. Gentlemen opposite in their term of office tried to do the same thing, even though they abandoned it later. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should be out of order if I continued on that theme. At present, there has not been a notable and dramatic success by all the panoply of committees which we have under the Race Relations Act.
Does anybody think that by passing the Bill bus drivers overnight will accept women as drivers? Does anybody think that the railway unions will welcome women as signalwomen, as porters, or even as train drivers? At Christmas time an enormous number of temporary staff are employed to deal with additional mail. If a husky young girl applies for a job, she is told that it is only men or boys that can be employed.

Dame Joan Vickers: No.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: That is certainly the position in London.
Over many years Measures have been introduced to provide equal pay for women. It was not until we adopted a far better strategy that we saw the principle accepted in the professions, in the Civil Service, in local government, in the Health Service and in teaching. In my view the problem that we are facing today would be better served, and more rapidly and practically achieved, if we were to apply ourselves to the very areas which the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) mentioned. We should approach this issue in the same way as we approached the issue of equal pay.
We have to do far more groundwork. It is easy to dismiss the issue within the factories. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raised the question of night shifts. We cannot have it both ways. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) says that the Bill would not interfere with the protection given to women vis-à-vis night shift work. Where there is a three-shift system of work, and because of the protection accruing to women under legislation passed by the House, the whole of that type of work, with full union support—and the provision is most rigidly enforced—is done by male workers.
If that protection is retained for women, it will be necessary to say that if it is day work the women must be allowed to do it, but they are protected and they need not do the night work. The women can do the day shift, while the men can do the night shift. That is not providing equality. Alternatively, we shall remove the protection which it has been found necessary to give women under our industrial regulations.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Talk it out.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: That is not what I am endeavouring to do. On the contrary, I am sincere in my views. I have never filibustered in the House, and I do not intend to start now.
On the other side of the coin, there are many spheres of employment which are dominated by women and, as the


hon. Member for Fife, West admitted, the Bill would encourage men to use their best endeavours to invade spheres of employment which, almost exclusively, have employed women. One can imagine the reaction if a young man, lured by good pay, wanted to plunge into a female-dominated sphere of secretarial work. [Interruption.] I am not saying that there are no young men so employed, but I am saying that it is a female-dominated sphere. I did not say that it was exclusively female. In my time, three young men have written to ask me whether they could be my secretary. If I considered that it would be unwise, that it might, through no fault of mine, give rise to gossip, if I turned that applicant down, under the Bill, I could be hauled up and told that his qualifications are better and that I have discriminated against him on grounds of sex.
There are male State registered nurses. Are they now to demand that they are entitled to take the training as midwives?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mrs. Renée Short: Gynecologists are men.

An Hon. Member: That is the trouble.

Mr. Molley: They exist: ambulance men are midwives.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: They are trained in an emergency, certainly, and even policemen in an emergency have assisted, but I wonder whether the hon. Member has discussed this point with the Midwives' Association? If an employer is appointing for training in the executive field, he may reasonably make the choice between a young male executive and a young married female who are equally qualified, and he might use his judgment and consider that the recently married young woman could very well have a family, which would break into the training which the job requires. This could give the name of discrimination to something which is a reasonably balanced decision.
We have a greater likelihood of achieving these aims and doing away with discrimination by exercising steady pressure on selected areas where the impact and discrimination against women is greatest, where there is an overwhelming case for a fairer deal for women. This is a much

more practical approach than this overriding Bill.
I want pressure put on the Department of Education and Science as more and more women head teachers lose out on the changeover from single sex to comprehensive schools. Far too many first-class women heads lose all prospect of such jobs for the future. We have more chance of winning this by applying pressure in the right spot than by an overriding Bill.
I want pressure put on other Government Departments. Customs and immigration officers should not be over-ridingly male, with the few women customs officers allowed to work only when they are searching a suspected female smuggler. I want pressure put on teaching hospitals so that female students with equal qualifications have far greater opportunities and are not denied a place when their qualifications are often greater than those of a male applicant but there are just not enough places for them.
I want to see concentrated and progressive campaigns on areas of employment where it is practical, feasible and wholly justifiable that women should be recruited on merit, regardless of their sex.
This Bill will provide a bonanza of publicity for the extrovert members of "Women's Lib", who will challenge all sorts of cock-eyed jobs in male professions to enhance their publicity. But there is a great task, and in saying this I am not as distant from many hon. Ladies on the benches opposite as they are endeavouring to suggest—

Mrs. Renée Short: You are joking, dear.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I am as sincere in my desire to see prejudice removed as are hon. Ladies and their colleagues opposite and anyone else. However, I want the big battles to be fought in areas where it is practicable to fight them and where one is justified in fighting them.
This House is used to battles, but without the preparation that is necessary for a step of the kind that is proposed, without the goodwill of all those married women—[Interruption.]some of whose husbands are out of work, and without the agreement of the male-entrenched trade unions, half of which


have not woken up to the implications of the Bill—

Mr. Molloy: Name them.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: They do not support it.

Mr. Molloy: Name one that does not support the Bill.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: My fear is that the Bill will raise hopes which will not be fulfilled—

Mr. Molloy: Tell the truth.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: We would be far better off employing the methods that were used to achieve equal pay than by passing a Measure such as this.

3.32 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: As I listened to the Minister of State I had one regret about the Bill, and that was that administrative responsibility for its enforcement has not been placed with the Department of Employment. If it had, presumably the Secretary of State for Employment would have spoken in place of the Minister of State, and it would have been impossible for him to make the speech, we have just listened to. It would have been impossible because the Minister of State in every word he uttered contradicted in every respect a speech that was made with great passion by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment when the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill was in Committee.
The Minister of State made the incredible remark that discrimination did not exist against women in employment in the vast number of cases. The only person in a position to know that is the Secretary of State for Employment who, from his own mouth, still believes that legislation in this sphere is desirable and necessary.
I will remind the House of what the Secretary of State for Employment said when the earlier Measure was proceeding through Committee. The similiarity between his speech on that occasion and the speech today of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was fantastic. I could not help thinking that the hand may be the

hand of Hamilton, but the voice is the voice of Carr. [Interruption.] I am, of course, speaking only in this context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West need not object because we have a Trojan horse inside the Government, bearing in mind the remarks of the present Secretary of State for Employment on my Equal Pay Bill. He said that the Conservative Party welcomed the equal pay Measure and that the only objection he and his hon. Friends had to it was that it did not go far enough. At that time the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) tabled an Amendment to stop discrimination against women in employment and she was supported by her right hon. Friend.
This was what the Secretary of State said then and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West would be only too glad to be associated with his comments:
There is a real danger that, if we press hard on the door of equal pay, without at the same time pressing hard to push open the door of equal opportunity, we shall create a situation where we intensify the hiving-off tendency of women's employment.… If the Bill does nothing about equality of opportunity, it might fail to help a large majority of women workers and make advancement in pay and job opportunity more difficult rather than less difficult.
He went on to condemn my Bill in these terms:
Equality of opportunity does not appear anywhere in the Bill. We wish to put it into the Bill.
Finally, he said:
Until we take action which matches insistence on equal pay for work of broadly similar nature with legislative pressure for equal opportunity for women in work, the purpose of the Secretary of State"—
that was then myself—
will not be achieved.
My answer then was that the Amendment being moved was a nonsense in terms of the Bill then before the Committee.
I also knew that if we were to complicate the Bill at that time by adding this additional facet which stood on its own, we were in danger of not getting it on to the Statute Book before the General Election came. I knew that if the General Election came and that legislation was not on the Statute Book, it would never be put on the Statute


Book under a Conservative Government. We have proof of this in the double talk we are having from the Secretary of State for Employment today.
When we are told that there is no discrimination in employment and that legislation cannot deal with it, I ask hon. Members to obtain a copy of the Standing Committee Report for 3rd March, 1970, in which the present Secretary of State for Employment read out to the Committee a list of discriminations very similar to those that had been read out by my hon. Friend today. The right hon. Gentleman said:
This limitation on the equality of women spreads right across the board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee H, 3rd March, 1970; c. 137–40.]
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Stock Exchange and ministries of religion and he pointed to the trade unions. To the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) I say it is true that there are rank and file trade unionists down the line who have shown discrimination; but it is a libel on the trade union movement to say that, therefore, the trade union movement officially opposes the Bill or supports discrimination. We have the support of the T.U.C., which may be glad of the Bill to help it to educate some of its own rank and file, because we are not dealing with saints here but with human beings.
When the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) took the Secretary of State at his word and put down a Question to him not long ago, asking whether he would now, in keeping with what he said in Standing Committee, take legislative action to prevent women being excluded from the Stock Exchange, the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary was put up to answer because the right hon. Gentleman could not face the music of his own hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman was put up to say that it was not that legislation was inappropriate but that he thought it was unnecessary because prejudice in this field was melting away and provincial stock exchanges were accepting women, and it would, therefore, be only a matter of time before the problem was solved.
When I challenged the Under-Secretary about what had happened in the Standing Committee and why his right hon. Friend was not acting in accord

ance with what he said then, the hon. Gentleman replied:
My right hon. Friend still adheres to the views he expressed then."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 554.]
What have we got? Iis it a split inside the Government? If so I should have thought, having nailed his colours so ardently to the mast of feminine equality, the Secretary of State for Employment ought to resign from a Government which can produce the sort of speech we have had from the Minister of State today.
To whom should we listen, the Secretary of State for Employment, who still adheres to the views I have just read, or the Minister of State for the Home Office, who was put up to give us the sort of reactionary speech we have had today? The Secretary of State for Employment ought to know whether discrimination in employment exists. It is the Secretary of State for Employment who should know whether legislation in this area would be practicable and useful and whether it is necessary. He says that it is. Therefore, the Government are in honour bound to keep the word of their Secretary of State for Employment and give the Bill every facility.

3.40 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am proud to be one of the sponsors of the Bill. I make no apologies for that just because there may be the dot or comma in the drafting that is not legislatively acceptable. I know that I speak also for other hon. Ladies who are sponsors or supporters of the Bill. The aims of the Bill have my wholehearted support and I congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on his particularly felicitous choice of subject.
It is important not to trivialise the aims of the Bill. It may be right to seek to expose various manifestations of discrimination, but it is important also to define the nature of the deep-seated prejudice against women which, unlike racial or religious discrimination, is neither sinister nor malevolent, nor is it motivated by hatred and fear. It is founded rather on ignorance, lack of confidence and sheer indifference, expressed in the unquestioning attitudes often of women themselves, attitudes which may have had some relevance in another day


and age but have long since ceased to be relevant.
Therefore, what is needed is a drastic change of attitudes. One way of achieving that is through re-education, which may involve the exposure of the irrationality of specific instances of discrimination. It may be that this can be done most effectively by an anti-discrimination board. Although Clause 6 of the Bill does not specify it, it is highly desirable that such a board should be required to make periodic reports both for the exposure of discrimination and for further study.
Secondly, it is necessary to build up confidence in the ability and reliability of women, because underlying all prejudice is the insulting presupposition that women are inferior.
But, above all, in re-educating attitudes we must explode the myth that education and training are a waste of time for women because they get married and have children. It is estimated that by 1981 two-thirds of working women will be married, and a high proportion of them will have returned to work after having brought up their families. Therefore, what is needed is not less but more education in the way of retraining and refresher courses for such women.
The Bill goes far beyond the establishment of new attitudes. I recognise that there will be considerable difficulties in its implementation, not unlike the difficulties that were associated with the implementation of the Race Relations Act. But because the bias against women is not evil, and the examples of it are more immediately obvious, I think that the Bill will have a greater chance of success. It is a vital accompaniment to the phasing-in of the Equal Pay Act, which could turn out to be just an empty gesture without anti-discrimination legislation to ensure that women are given equality of opportunity in job selection and in some cases in holding down the jobs they now have, which they might otherwise lose as a result of the Act.
Moreover, equal pay is not the same as equal earnings when women do not have the same opportunities to work overtime or have the same clear promotional path as men in industry and the professions.
Unfortunately, most women become accustomed to bias long before starting their working lives. I believe that if the Bill becomes law the Department of Education and Science will have radically to change some of its ideas to avoid prosecution under Clause 4. If a girl has a scientific or mathematical bent, it is very unlikely that she will find the same facilities in a girls' school as she would find in a boys' school.
Worst of all is the pitifully small proportion of university places available to girls. This means that a far higher standard of scholarship is demanded of female applicants. If the Department of Education and Science was not prosecuted under the Bill when enacted, I hope that it would be directed to order an immediate and comprehensive review of education for girls and women, which is long overdue and highly necessary.
The long trail of discrimination starts for most girls at school and continues throughout their working lives. Not only do they encounter difficulty in training, in education, in being accepted for apprenticeships by trade unions and in jobs and professions which are traditionally male preserves, but when they have overcome all of this they will probably encounter heavy discrimination when it comes to promotion.
The position for professional women is probably somewhat worse because, unless they are absolutely outstanding, it is very unlikely that they will be offered a job or an appointment commensurate in pay and status with their male counterpart of equal ability. Let us face the fact that a woman must be three times better than her male counterpart to survive and about five times better to be promoted above him. The odds are three to one against her from the start. Is it surprising, therefore, that at the moment when they must make crucial educational and training decisions, many able and talented girls are daunted by the prospects and as a result settle for softer options?
Having gone in some details into the bias that women have to face in education and at work, I do not intend to go into detail into the many ways in which the law, and even tax assessment, discriminates against women. These examples are well known to the House


and were ably and admirably dealt with in the two reports of the Cripps Committee which were commissioned by the Prime Minister. It was that committee which first recommended a form of antidiscrimination board.
The Bill will not end the attitudes that we want to overcome; it will not end injustice or discrimination, but it will discourage it and make it more difficult to practise. In doing so it will do a service, not only to women, but to the whole country in giving encouragement to a hitherto untapped source of talent and potential in women, who already play a very important part in the nation's economic life and who have a very valuable further contribution to make.

3.48 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I hope that the very reasonable and eloquent speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) will persuade her colleagues on the back benches of the merits and principles of the Bill.
Much has been said about the drafting and the weaknesses of the Bill. We are all realists here and we know that it is very difficult for any Private Member to draft a perfect Bill. What we are discussing is the principle behind it. Every hon. Member knows that, whatever may be said to the contrary, thousands of women have described the discrimination which they have experienced and millions of women have suffered in their working lives because there has not been complete equality of opportunity, training and education between men and women.
The Bill is not an airy-fairy conception, however much it may appear to have been so to those who have criticised it today. It arose in the first place because a bus conductress in a London garage saw a notice in the staff room encouraging staff to apply for training as inspectors. She applied for such training but was told that she could not be so trained because she was a woman, and as a woman she had not been able to be a bus driver and unless she had complete experience of all aspects of bus work she could not be an inspector. That is a genuine case and many women are in a similar position. They want to be trained as inspectors and they are competent

drivers, but because they have not been able to be bus drivers they cannot be inspectors. One can multiply this kind of example in many trades, businesses and professions.
In listening to the debate I have been amazed by some of the comments suggesting that this kind of legislation is not only unnecessary but revolutionary. In the United States women have made tremendous use of the legislation against discrimination and have been extremely successful. The American legislation is very similar to what we are seeking, although it is all-embracing since it covers other discrimination besides that on grounds of sex. In Canada there is similar provision. We are not suggesting anything that is unusual or unworkable because the fact that it is workable has been proved by experience in other countries. We know that it will be used by women here if the Bill goes through.
The Bill is limited in concept and I am the first to recognise that there are many other areas of discrimination where legislation is needed. The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester mentioned tax discrimination. There is also discrimination in pensions, social security and so on, and also in jury service—where women are not eligible on the same grounds as men—and in many other sectors. I believe that the Bill provides machinery on which other forms of discrimination could be eliminated by succeeding legislation.
It has already been pointed out that the Bill is a necessary corollary to the Equal Pay Act. Equal pay of itself will not give women the necessary equal job opportunity as soon as they begin to work outside the home. I wish that the Bill could do very much more than it does. So far from thinking that it goes too far, I think it is much too limited. I wish it could be all-embracing and sweep away the social conditions, the family blackmail, the official complacency and indifference, the advertising gimmickry and the everlasting patronising by society towards women which have constricted every woman in the country whether she recognises it or not.
Unfortunately we cannot do that in a Private Members' Bill. The Bill provides machinery which can be used by women in a limited way and which can later be used against other forms of sex


discrimination when legislation is produced. It is not only an important follow-up to the equal pay legislation in that it provides machinery for equality of opportunity but, when it comes into operation, it can have an uplifting effect on the whole level of women's occupations.
The great majority of women who work outside the home today are not those seeking to enter the top professions—important though those women are and important though it is that they should have complete freedom to do so. The majority of working women are those who, like cleaners, unskilled factory workers and unskilled women of all kinds, occupy the very lowest-paid jobs in the community. These are the ones whom I most want to help. They can only be helped by opportunities for education and training—training probably at a later stage of life than is normal today—to get out of this rut of being forced to undertake the very lowest-paid jobs when they have to go out to work to help keep their families and maintain themselves.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Mrs. Butler: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I have not the time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Would it not be in accordance with the conventions of the House if the hon. Lady allowed me two or three minutes in which to ask her—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.

Mrs. Butler: Time is very limited. In the few minutes I have left I would like to echo the praise lavished on my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who I am delighted was able to be here today to make such a vigorous speech so soon after his recent illness. He has done a great service to the people of this country, particularly the women, by introducing the Bill. Behind my hon. Friend there is a group of men and women, hon. Members of this House, many of whom are here today, who have given splendid support to the principles of the Bill over the years. Behind them are the men and women of the country for whom the Bill is the culmination of a crusade

which, even if the Bill does not get a Second Reading today, will continue until the objectives of the Bill are achieved either by a Bill in this form or one very similar to it. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. William Hamilton: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is abundantly clear that 95 per cent. of hon. Members who are present—and there is a large attendance in the House for a Friday—are very much in favour of the Bill. If the Bill does not obtain a Second Reading, the House and the people of this country, particularly the women, will demand that, if not on this occasion, on some occasion in the near future the House should come to a decision and not allow the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) to adopt the tactics which he has adopted today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me.

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

Later—

Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is almost without precedent that there should be such a large attendance in the House on a Friday. This gives a clear indication of the strength of feeling of the House, which is almost unanimous. It is a gross abuse of the House and its time that there should not be a vote on the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is completely out of order. He is not entitled to question my decision. If he will look at "Erskine May" he will see that one of Mr. Speaker's rôles is to protect minorities. The Bill has been debated for an hour and 40 minutes and, in accordance with every precedent, it would not have been appropriate for me to allow the Closure.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: There cannot be a point of order on the Closure. On another point of order, Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Heffer: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can remember an occasion when, after a debate which lasted for a reasonably short time, the House voted on the Bill and not on the Closure. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) will remember the occasion. I understand that you have not accepted the Closure Motion, Mr. Speaker, because the debate has not lasted for two hours, but on the basis of the precedent which I have mentioned we are not precluded from voting on the Bill itself and I therefore ask you to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid it is too late. Whatever are my personal views on the matter I am bound by the rules of the House.

Mr. Pavitt: On another point of order. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that the previous debate was delayed by the usual practices which are quite in order. Would it be possible for the Select Committee on Procedure to be asked to look at the question of filibustering—perhaps I should not say filibustering, but talking too long—on a preceding Bill so as to reduce the amount of time available for discussing an important piece of legislation afterwards which comes before the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that note will be taken of that. I considered this matter very carefully and not at all unsympathetically, but I felt I was bound by predecent and the rules.

Mr. Robert Mellish: On a point of order. Without in any way questioning your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, knowing that you are bound by procedure and are a House of Commons man of great experience who has always been compassionate about the House, I ask you to recognise that there is strong feeling on this matter and respectfully suggest that, through the usual channels, aided and abetted by yourself, the Procedure Committee should consider the situation in which the vast majority of

the hon. Members want something done but, because of an outdated procedure, you are unable to allow it. This puts you, Mr. Speaker, in an unfair position. This matter must be taken up by the authorities; and brought back to the House for decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: I note the right hon. Gentleman's point. I did not consider this matter unsympathetically, but I think he will find it laid down—and it is perhaps dangerous to go too far—that it is the duty of Mr. Speaker to protect a minority, however small. With regard to the other point made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure that will be considered.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Where the alleged minority is engaged in a deliberate filibuster to prevent the two-hour interval being made available to the majority of the House, is this not a point for consideration?

Mr. Speaker: There is no such thing as the "two-hour interval". With regard to the Second Reading of a Bill on a Friday, in relation to the first Bill on the Order Paper the Closure has never been given in less than about four hours fifty minutes; and in regard to Closure on Bills second on the Order Paper there have been three cases of earlier Closures but each completely different from the circumstances today. I am afraid that there it is, and that is how the matter must stand.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CIGARETTES (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

HOSPITAL SERVICES, BIRMINGHAM AREA (PRIVATE PATIENTS)

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this important matter, although I came here in the hope that I should be voting on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Although of course I respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed that we were not able today to have a vote on that important matter.
I am speaking as a member of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. I also speak as one who does not believe in private practice in the National Health Service. I raise this matter because I believe that the replies which have been given to me as a member of that hospital board are unsatisfactory. I speak in the sincere conviction that my constituents and the people of the Midlands have a right to know what is going on inside the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. I must point out that I am prepared to say anything I say in this House this afternoon without the protection of parliamentary privilege. Indeed I am prepared to carry out my own little "Pearce Commission" over the weekend to test the acceptability of what is said to me in reply by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government.
I am not talking of particular individuals on the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. I am speaking this afternoon about something which happens unfortunately all over the country. The Birmingham R.H.B. is just one example. What we have is the development of a hospital Mafia inside the National Health Service. Unfortunately, this particular Mafia is not even as bright as the proper Mafia it gets found out. This is the kind of concern I want to express to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of my constituents.
This is the regional hospital board under whose auspices the Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry allowed 700 private patients to be seen and allowed £30,000 to be collected in fees in 18 months when no authorisation for private practice had been given. This is the regional hospital board that sacked Mrs. Theresa Stewart because she found out what was happening at Walsgrave. This

is the regional hospital board that has owned up to having what I can only describe as private nursing homes run under National Health Service auspices.
I refer to the Queen Victoria Nursing Institute in Wolverhampton, an institute with some 55 beds, of which 34 are private and 4 amenity. The figures show that there has hardly been a National Health Service patient in those private beds. It is a hospital with an average unit cost per in-patient per week of some £16 above the regional average and its in-patients are paying only the ordinary private patient fee. I suggest that it is a hospital where private patients are being subsidised by the regional hospital board.
The Birmingham Regional Hospital Board says that certain things should be done to the Queen Victoria Nursing Institute, and certain modifications may be made. But, instead of closing down extravagant and under-utilised facilities like this, the hospital facilities of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) are being attacked. That is apparently the order of priority.
We have the example of the South Bank Nursing Home at Worcester. There, there are 12 private beds out of 23, and hardly any National Health Service occupancy of those beds. That again is a veritable private nursing home.
Then we have Bromsgrove General Hospital which, in 1970, admitted 560 private patients and collected £108 in private patients' fees. That sum represents less than 20p per patient. When it was discovered, many of the private patients were allowed to get away without any charge.
We have Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield, which had 48 private nonresident patients in 1970. The sum involved there was £312. Again, no authorisation was given for this private practice.
Another example is the Royal Salop Infirmary at Shrewsbury. The hon. Gentleman does not know about this one yet. Again there has been non-authorised private non-resident practice. I submit that this is another example of a veritable private wing.
We have a situation where the regional hospital board is now meticulously


coming to the Secretary of State to seek authorisation for all these examples of private practice, many of which have been going on quite illegally. I am urging the hon. Gentleman to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reject these applications for authorisation outright.
I do not want to give the impression that the board itself has not been concerned. On 24th March this year it passed a resolution calling for the setting up of an independently-chaired inquiry into private practice in the region. Six months later, on 22nd September, the Board said that in spite of that resolution the inquiry could not be carried out because of practical difficulties.
What are the people of the Midlands to think of this regional hospital board? What are the Midlands newspapers to think of it? I want to praise the activities of the Sunday Mercury and the Birmingham Post, a couple of newspapers which have not been nobbled by the board's public relations department. I hope that they will both carry on their work.
The hon. Gentleman's Department cannot authorise these applications when in every case there is an increasing waiting list and a growing tendency to jump the queue. It is going on in almost every case in which the Secretary of State has been asked to authorise private practice. In many instances where the right hon. Gentleman is asked to increase the number of pay beds one sees a diminishing occupancy of them. In other words, instead of their being increased, in many cases they should be reduced in number.
How can the Department authorise increased private practice in the regional board's area when the chairman and officers of the board went before the Select Committee on Expenditure and told it that they had no overall control of private practice and that each individual hospital management committee was left to work out its own system of financial control? The Department must refuse the authorisations, and the Secretary of State must hold a full inquiry into the activities of the board. The public demand it.
I want to pay tribute to a great many consultants in the National Health Service. They do a fine job, not only in this country but abroad, in the way that

they spread the reputation of the National Health Service. Unfortunately, we have a private wing, a Mafia. They have their own special advisory committee on merit awards. They have a bran-tub of goodies which they distribute amongst themselves with no public control or accountability. It can be described only as a consultants' Cosa Nostra. That is what we have going on at the moment among the consultants.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) and Rugby here. Their constituents are served by the Coventry Management Committee. The Secretary of State must not authorise any more applications for private practice, resident or non-resident, in the Birmingham Hospital Board area. He must set up an inquiry. The National Health Service is already in peril.
We already have the disappearance of National Health Service facilities in dentistry over large parts of the country. Will the Minister step in and do something about the National Health Service in the West Midlands?

Mr. William Wilson: Does my hon. Friend realise that in Coventry, which is part of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board area, there are over 4,000 National Health Service patients waiting for beds?

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for that interjection by my hon. Friend. Many of my constituents have to go to the Walsgrave hospital for treatment.
I end as I began with the point which I have been making all through my speech. How can the Department even consider the authorisation of any more private practice in this region? Will the hon. Gentleman please get his right hon. Friend and the Department to hold a full inquiry into the Board immediately and try to salvage a tiny bit of the National Health Service in the West Midlands before it disappears?

4.16 p.m.

Mr. William Price: I should apologise, Mr. Speaker, for my unorthodox dress. I am in something of a dilemma. Just before coming into the Chamber the zip came apart from my trousers and I have not had an opportunity to have repairs carried out.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Chauvinist.

Mr. Price: It is perhaps an inappropriate day for that to happen. The alternative would be to cause some embarrassment to myself and no doubt to the House as well.
In the two to three minutes available to me I want to say that I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and pay tribute to the work that he is doing on hospital matters in the West Midlands.
It is not easy when dealing with the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, which is a monolithic organisation which operates with a secrecy which would do credit to any masonic order. As soon as a member of the board begins to cause trouble—as in the case of Mrs. Theresa Stewart, who has been mentioned—the officials of the board have a quaint way of sorting out the problem: he gets the sack. I warn my hon. Friend that he is the next likely contender for the chop. I have seen it coming for some time. I suspect that his days are numbered.
According to the Secretary of State, both he and I have been running a vendetta against the board. At least I have the consolation of knowing that the board cannot sack me. My part in this so-called vendetta has been rather narrower than that of my hon. Friend.
In the main I have been concerned with goings-on at the Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry, which serves my area. I was satisfied when the board announced its intention to set up an independent inquiry. I was astonished when it later decided not to go ahead. The reason given was rather curious. It was that two barristers had apparently declined to take on the job. That really is a shady excuse which has fooled nobody in the West Midlands.
There are more than 60,000 people awaiting admission to hospitals in the region. Serious allegations have been made, but no independent inquiry has been carried out. I regard that as a shameful state of affairs which the Minister should put right. I have a good deal of admiration for him and the work that he does. He has always been extremely helpful to me about hospital matters involving my constituency. He knows from a recent visit that it is a matter which arouses a lot of passion.
It is right, too, that I should say one thing about the regional board. I believe—I do not know whether my hon. Friend will agree—that it does a good job under difficult circumstances. There are always too many priorities and too little money. I do not think that the board, apart from this argument over pay beds, has much to hide. In many respects it has a good record. I think that the present chairman is doing his best, but I ask the Minister to say to the board: "For God's sake, tell people what you are doing."

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has shown a great deal of persistence in pursuing the matter of private practice in the Birmingham region and attacking the attitude and, indeed, the competence of the very regional board of which he is a notable member. At any rate, I cannot accuse him of partiality in this respect.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) not only for the kind words he spoke about me but, more particularly, for the helpful and encouraging comments which he made about the board.
Since it came to light early last year that private patients had been admitted to Walsgrave hospital in excess of the authorised number, the hon. Member for Nuneaton and a number of his hon. Friends have raised the matter in many Questions to which they have had, I hope, extensive and full answers. I am not complaining about that. I mention it to remind the House that the subject has been extensively considered in the House. Indeed, papers going fully into this matter have been placed in the Library for scrutiny by hon. Members.
When the situation at Walsgrave Hospital came to light, the hon. Member knows that my right hon. Friend gave instructions that no more private patients should be admitted in excess of the authorised number and he asked the board to investigate and report to him any failure to observe the statutory procedure. The hon. Gentleman knows that the hospital board had been planned to accommodate private patients, but there had been lengthy correspondence between


the board and the hospital management committee as to the actual amount of private accommodation for which my right hon. Friend's authorisation must be sought.
After considerable deliberation the board decided to seek authorisation for 18 pay beds overall, and that number was approved by my right hon. Friend. In due course the board's report was received, and copies of the document have been placed in the Library. The report confirmed that there had been a breach of the rules, although taking the hospitals in the Coventry sub-group as a whole the average occupancy of private patients had not exceeded the number of pay beds authorised in the group.
I ought to mention, by the way of correction, that the £30,000 referred to by the hon. Member for Nuneaton was not consultants' fees. We have no knowledge of what they are paid. The sum of £30,000 was collected by the hospital for the cost, so it is a net increment to the Exchequer and not to the consultants.
My right hon. Friend asked the board to convey to the Coventry Hospital Management Committee his concern at the failure to observe the statutory requirements. He was also satisfied that adequate arrangements had been made at Walsgrave Hospital to ensure that the amount of accommodation authorised for private patients would not be exceeded in the future.
I do not propose to go into detail about the other instances of irregularity, or alleged irregularity, elsewhere in the Birmingham region which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, largely because my right hon. Friend has received from the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) a memorandum which she has prepared. We have been going into this in great detail and we shall shortly reply to the hon. Lady.
I note the hon. Gentleman's supplementary point about a particular case which lay outside the memorandum which has been presented, and I shall attempt to include that in the reply. It is sufficient to say that, apart from Walsgrave, the instances mentioned where the number of private in-patients has exceeded the authorised number can

really only be regarded as trivial. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman will see this from my right hon. Friend's reply.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the use by private patients of National Health Service out-patient facilities—I think that he touched on this today, and it is certainly touched on in the memorandum—without authority and without the collection of charges. Some of the unauthorised use of facilities has been due to genuine misunderstanding on the transfer of services from one hospital to another. If there have been shortcomings in the collection of charges, I am confident that the authorities concerned, with the assistance of the Department's auditors, who have an important monitoring rôle, will see that there is strict control in future.
I now turn to the question of the inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he has raised in the past by Questions and in other ways. Following the Walsgrave incident, the board resolved that there should be an inquiry, which it proposed to make with an independent chairman, throughout the region into a number of matters relating to private patients. However, after receiving legal advice as to the practicality of carrying out an inquiry with the terms of reference proposed, the board decided not to proceed. I understand that the difficulty of the inquiry in obtaining evidence on the subjects to be inquired into was the main factor in the legal advice received by the board. It was the decision of the board originally to set up an inquiry and it was the board's decision to abandon it. Both decisions were fully within the board's rights and we in the Department are perfectly content to concur.
On the basis of the allegations of misuse of National Health Service facilities which we have seen there is certainly no justification for a ministerial inquiry. Some of the difficulties mentioned in the legal advice received by the board would also arise. In any event, during the last few months the Employment and Social Services Sub-Committee of the House of Commons Expenditure Committee has been carrying out a detailed investigation into the use of National Health Service facilities for private patients. It has taken oral and written evidence from a


number of bodies including the hon. Gentleman's own regional hospital board. Mr. Perris has been before the Committee and given evidence. The Committee will have ample opportunity to investigate any irregularities which may have come to light. I and my right hon. Friend await its report with great interest.
The Government think it right that a proper proportion of beds—as provided for by the hon. Member's own Government's 1968 Act—should be available in National Health Service hospitals for people to pay for their treatment, bearing in mind the needs of those who do not wish to pay, who, I agree, constitute the vast majority.
As areas change and hospitals merge or are developed, there are changes in the demand for pay beds and outpatient facilities for private patients, so there is a steady stream of applications from boards all over the country for increases and decreases in the extent of the accommodation to be made available to private patients.
In the Birmingham Hospital Board region in the last 18 months there has been a net increase of 14 pay beds, making a total of 341. This represents just short of 0.9 per cent. of all the beds in the region. If we include the 106 pay beds at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, this represents 8·6 pay beds per 100,000 population. Leaving aside the metropolitan regions, Birmingham comes about midway in the national "league table" of pay bed provision.
We are at present considering a few applications from the Birmingham board for authority to provide facilities for private out-patients in the hospitals in the region. We are extremely impressed with the amount of detailed information which the hon. Member's board has provided for us, to enable us to come to a decision in each case.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It would not give it to us.

Mr. Alison: Decisions will not be taken lightly and I am sure that additional facilities will not prejudice the position of N.H.S. patients. I understand that the number of private outpatients already seen represents a tiny proportion of total out-patients seen.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I have great personal respect for the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, because I know that they are both generally sincere in what they say and do. But cannot the hon. Gentleman accept that all the applications for authorisation which are coming before him now are taking place when National Health Service queues are lengthening and queue jumping is increasing? Surely he cannot authorise any more private practice in those circumstances.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman must remember two things. First, paradoxically, as hospital provision increases, so do waiting lists. That is one of the ironies of the situation. Second, the hon. Gentleman cannot overlook the wide range of opinion which considers that the availability of private practice and private facilities in regional boards is an asset from the point of view of most National Health Service patients as a whole, so far as it affects the encouragement of consultants to practise there.
Reference has been made to the size of the waiting lists in the region, so perhaps I should say something about the Government's attitude to this general problem and about the present position and prospects for the future. We intend to ensure that lists are reduced to the lowest level consonant with operational needs. Despite continuous increases in the numbers of patients treated, the waiting lists are still higher and in some specialities, though only some, a good deal higher than we would wish.
There is also a problem in some areas of waiting time for hospital consultation after a patient has been referred to the hospital by his general practitioner. These are two aspects of the same problem: that resources in certain areas and specialities are not sufficient to enable all patients seeking non-urgent treatment to receive it as soon as we should like. We are considering with the medical profession what measures can be taken to reduce long in-patient waiting lists and delays between referral and consultation for out-patients. But already my Department has offered advice to the hospital service on means—and they are significant and effective means—by which waiting lists might be reduced.
What I have said applies, of course, also to the Birmingham region. I am aware of the particular problem of the region, which has the largest population of all the regions and at present less than the average number of beds in relation to population. It is not surprising, therefore, that the number of people on the waiting lists for admission to hospital, in relation to the population of the region, is slightly above the national average. Despite this the number of patients treated rose by about one-third in the 10 years up to 1969.
By reason of its special position, to which I have referred, the region received the highest allocation of revenue moneys of all the regions. It is also currently receiving the highest capital allocations. In 1970–71, £9·2 millions was spent on hospital building in the region. It is estimated that expenditure during the current financial year will reach £.13·7 million and a further substantial increase in spending is likely next year.
Our hope is that, with increasing resources becoming available in the region, the waiting list situation will before long show a considerable improvement, although it is also our experience that as resources increase, so does demand. It is an encouraging development that capital has appeared on the ground, as it were, and has had the effect, at least in this area, of reducing the waiting lists.
Since the Coventry area has figured in this debate, it may be of interest if I say that the latest available figures show that in the past two years there has been a marked reduction in the size of the waiting lists for admission to hospitals in this area. Undoubtedly this is related to the opening of the new Walsgrave Hospital.
Let us put all this in perspective. There are over 200 hospitals under the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, 70 of which have pay beds. Out of a total of some 40,500 beds, there are 341 pay beds. I would not wish to condone any irregularities in the use of N.H.S. facilities for private patients, nor of course does the regional board. [Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not dream of suggesting that there was any attempt on the part of the board to condone any such irregularities. It is a

board of the utmost integrity, enthusiasm and zeal in implementing its tasks under the N.H.S. Indeed, the bulk of the information on these points has come from the board itself. But those irregularities that have occurred can have had little or no effect on N.H.S. patients, and it is absurd to blow this up into a matter that requires a formal independent investigation.
These are matters essentially for local management, helped where necessary with advice, which is readily given, from the Department's auditors, and we have every confidence in the ability of the board, with the hospital management committee, to put right any defects that may occur in the system of local control.
I understand that the board's own monitoring arrangements have been strengthened and that whenever there have been indications that control needs strengthening, steps have been taken by both the board and the hospital management comittee concerned to ensure that the rules are strictly observed.
When the board decided not to proceed with an inquiry, the board's officers were instructed to carry out a detailed examination of the extent of the use made of private beds and of out-patient facilities for the treatment of private patients so that the needs could be re-assessed.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The details were not published.

Mr. Alison: I understand that this review is proceeding.
The board's officers have devoted considerable effort to the whole field of private practice over the past year and I am sure that this has served a useful purpose and has enabled hospital authorities to make any necessary improvements in their arrangements for dealing with private patients.
If the hon. Member for Nuneaton claims that this information has not been published, I can only suggest that as a member of the board he pursues that aspect with the board and its chairman. As far as I am aware the detailed scrutiny to which I referred is not yet complete.
The time has now come to let the board get on with its work of administering the hospital services in the region, of which the provision of facilities for private patients is, as I have indicated, only


a small part, without seeking to impose on it the additional burden of a special inquiry on the basis of a few irregularities which we believe it is competent to put right through normal administration and management machinery.
I stress that the private bed provision is a statutory one. It is provided for in Statutes agreed by Governments of

both parties, and demands for endless scrutiny and calls for inquiries place on the officers of any board a demand for the expenditure of time which is out of all proportion to the number of beds involved in this operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Five o'clock.